Protected designation of origin - geographical Indications
Print this pageIEPT20210909, CJEU, Champanillo
Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (common organisation of the markets for agricultural products) protects designations of origin (PDO) against acts which concern both products and services. The 'evocation’ referred to in Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 does not necessarily require that the product covered by a PDO and the product or service covered by the contested sign be identical and similar. The concept of 'evocation’ covers a situation in which the sign used to designate a product contains part of a protected geographical indication or of a PDO. 'Evocation' is present when the use of a designation evokes, in the minds of a reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant average European consumer, a sufficiently direct and obvious link between that designation and the PDO. The existence of such a link may be shown by various elements, in particular the fact that that name contains part of the protected name, the phonetic and visual similarity between the two names and the resulting correspondence and, even in the absence of those elements, by the fact that the PDO and the name in question are conceptually close or that the products covered by that PDO and the products or services covered by that name are similar. ‘Evocation’ is not dependent on a finding of unfair competition.
Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 (PDO scope of protection) covers, in a broad sense, all acts which may mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product concerned: does not merely prohibit the use by a third party of the registered name and prohibits the reproduction of the shape or appearance characterising a product covered by a registered name where that reproduction is liable to lead the consumer to believe that the product in question is covered by that registered name. It is necessary to assess whether such reproduction may mislead the European consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, taking into account all the relevant factors in the case.
IPPT20191204, CJEU, Aceto Balsamico di Modena
The protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ does not extend to the use of the non-geographical terms of that name such as ‘aceto’ and ‘balsamico’ and ‘aceto’ and ‘balsamico’ are common terms.
IPPT20191114, CJEU, Spedidam v INA
The Copyright Directive must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which establishes, as regards the exploitation of audiovisual archives by a body set up for that purpose, a rebuttable presumption that the performer has authorised the fixation and exploitation of his performances, where that performer is involved in the recording of an audiovisual work so that it may be broadcast: the protection of the performer also extends to the exploitation of audiovisual archives, the performer’s prior authorization is required for any act of reproduction or making available to the public of the fixations of their performances, provisions on consent for any act of reproduction or making available to the public also allow the consent to be expressed implicitly, when a performer who is himself involved in the making of an audiovisual work so that it may be broadcast by national broadcasting companies, and who is thus present at the place where such a work is recorded for those purposes, first, is aware of the envisaged use of his performance and gives his performance for the purposes of such use, it is possible to take the view, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that he has, as a result of that involvement, authorised the fixation of that performance and its exploitation.
IPPT20190502, CJEU, Fundación Queso Manchego v IQC
Figurative signs can “evoke” a registered name. No exception for producers of the products concerned established in the regio. Presumed consumer reaction based on sufficiently direct and clear link. Relevant consumers are European consumers, including consumers of the place where the product is made or consumed consumption.
IPPT20160121, CJEU, Viinaverla Oy
Geographical Indications: For the concept ‘evocation’ in Article 16(b) regulation ‘Protection geographical indications’ it is required to refer to the perception of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant. For a judgment to whether there is an ‘evocation’ the referring court must take into consideration the phonetic and visual relationship between those names and any evidence that may show that such a relation is not fortuitous. Even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion, ‘evocation’ of a name referred to in Annex III to regulation ‘Protection geographical indications’ is not allowed.
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.
IPPT20140508, CJEU, Assica
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
Actionable measures: any measures adopted by the institutions of the European Union which are intended to have binding legal effects, are actionable measures (article 263 TFEU). Automatic registration: automatic registration by European Commission of already protected wine names in E-Bacchusdatabase does not establish binding legal effects and thus is not subject to appeal.
IPPT20030520, CJEU, Prosciutto di Parma
The condition of slicing and packaging in the region of production, whose aim is to preserve the reputation of Parma ham by strengthening control over its particular characteristics and its quality, may be regarded as justified as a measure protecting the PDO which may be used by all the operators concerned and is of decisive importance to them.
IPPT20000516, ECJ, Belgium v Spain
Obligation to bottle Rioja-wine in production area constitutes a justified requirement
