Designations of Origin

2017

 

IPPT20171220, CJEU, Champagner Sorbet

The use of a Protected designation of origin (PDO) as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that PDO but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications – like “Champagner Sorbet” containing 12% champagne -  cannot be regarded, in itself, as an unfair use against which PDOs are protected in all circumstances: it is for the national courts to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of each individual case, whether such use is intended to take unfair advantage of the reputation of a PDO, this is the case when that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff. 

 

2014

IPPT20140508, CJEU, Salame Felino
Council Regulation on the protection of geographical indications and designations of agricultural products and foodstuffs: does not preclude additional national protection regulations, if these regulations do not undermine the objectives pursued by the principles of Regulation No 2081/92 and the principle of free movement of goods 

IPPT20140213, CJEU, Hungary v European Commission

States as designations of origin or geographical indications before 1 August 2009, which were not published by the Commission under Article 54(5) of Regulation No 1493/1999, has no effect on the automatic protection which those wine names enjoy at EU level. Indeed, the Commission is not authorised either to grant protection or to decide on the wine name which must be entered in the E-Bacchus database pursuant to Article 73(1). Thus, there is no need to make a distinction between the effects of an entry in the lists of quality wines psr published in the ‘C’ Series of the Official Journal of the European Union and the effects of an entry in the E-Bacchus database.

 

2011

 

IPPT20110714, CJEU, BNIC

Invalidation of trade mark with protected geographical indication [cognac] in case of commercial use in respect of comparable products, exploiting the reputation or misuse.Retroactive effect Regulation on geographical indications for spirit drinks regarding trade mark registrations

 

2010

 

IPPT20101222, CJEU, Bayerische Brauerbund v Bavaria

The date of the entry into force of the registration of the Protected Geographical Indication in accordance with the simplified procedure constitutes the reference date for the purposes of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.

 

2009

 

IPPT20090908, ECJ, Budvar v Ammersin

Regulation No 510/2006 is exhaustive in nature with the result that that regulation precludes the application of a system of protection laid down by an agreement between two Member States, which confers on a designation, recognised under the law of a Member State as constituting a designation of origin, protection in an-other Member State where that protection is actually claimed despite the fact that no application for registration of that designation of origin has been made in accordance with that regulation.

 

IPPT20090702, ECJ, Bavaria cs v Bayerische Brauerbund

No adverse affect Geographical Indications Regulation 1347/2001 on pre-existing Bavaria trademarks. Geographical Indications Regulation 1347/2001 valid

 

2008

 

IPPT20080612, ECJ, Tocai

Prohibition of the use of the term ‘Tocai’ for Italian wines, after the expiry on 31 March 2007 of a transitional period, is in agreement with the applicable regulations.

 

IPPT20080226, ECJ, Parmesan

The use of the name ‘Parmesan’ must be regarded as an evocation of the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’. The Commission has not established that, by formally refusing to proceed against the use on its territory of the name ‘Parme-san’ on the labelling of products which do not comply with the requirements of the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obliga-tions under Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. 

 

2007

 

IPPT20070419, ECJ, Bière Brut

Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC – Comparative advertising – Identifying a competitor or the goods or services offered by a competitor – Goods or services satisfying the same needs or with the same purpose – Reference to designations of origin.

 

2005

 

IPPT20051025, ECJ, Feta II

The national legislation and various factors relating to the consumption of feta in the Member States tend to indicate that the name ‘feta’ is not generic in nature

 

2003

 

IPPT20031118, ECJ, Budvar v Ammersin

Bilateral convention between a Member State and a non-member country protecting indications of geographical origin from that non-member country.

 

2002

 

IPPT20020625, ECJ, Bigi (Parmesan)

Products are not covered by the system of derogations set up by Article 13(2) where they originate in the State of the PDO the protection of which under Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2081/92 is at issue and they do not meet the product specification for that PDO. 

 

2000

 

IPPT20001107, ECJ, Warsteiner Brauerei

Regulation No 2081/92 does not preclude the application of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical provenance.

 

1999

 

IPPT19990403, ECJ, Gorgonzola

Use of a name such as 'Cambozola‘ may be deemed to evoke the protected des-ignation of origin 'Gorgonzola‘, irrespective of the fact that the packaging indicates the product's true origin.