The protection of traditional foods in the EU: Traditional specialities guaranteed

European Law Journal

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 545-576

  Tosato, Andrea ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880270357     PISSN: 13515993     EISSN: 14680386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/eulj.12040     Document Type: Article

References (177)

1. See Council Regulation 479/2008/EC on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) no. 1493/1999, (EC) no. 1782/2003, (EC) no. 1290/2005, (EC) no. 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) no. 2392/86 and (EC) no. 1493/1999, O.J. L148/12008
2. Council Regulation (EEC) no. 1601/91 of 10 June 1991 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of aromatised wines, aromatised wine-based drinks and aromatised wine-product cocktails, 1991 O.J. L149/1.
3. Enacted by Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, 1992 O.J. L 208/1, subsequently repealed and replaced by Council Regulation 510/2006/EC on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, 2006 O.J. L 93/12.
4. Enacted by Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs, 1992 O.J. L 208/9, subsequently repealed and replaced by Council Regulation 509/06/EC on agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed, O.J. L 93/1.2006
5. Enacted by Regulation 1151/12/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, O.J. 2012 L343/1.
6. D. Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (CUP, 2012
7. V. Mantrov, 'Protection Norms of Indications of Geographical Origin in the Applicable Regulations: Recent Changes and the Necessity for Further Unification', (2012) 43 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 174.
8. D. Holland and H. Pope, EU Food Law and Policy (Kluwer, 2004), at 127-129
9. C. MacMaolain, EU Food Law (Hart, 2007), at 117-119
10. L. Bently and B. Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (CUP, 3rd edn, 2008), at 981-1001
11. C. Seville, EU Intellectual Property Law and Policy (Edward Elgar, 2009), at 305-309
12. L. Joyet and M. Delobel, 'Protection des produits traditionnels rhônalpins) par la Spécialité Traditionnelle Garantie' (2006) http://rhone-alpes.synagri.com/synagri/pj.nsf/46b50bbadf2cf901c1256c2f0041b9a7/28c531179caf020bc1257227003bb074/FILE/Document%20de%20synth%C3%A8se%20STG.pdfThe only judicial dispute involving a TSG was Trade Mark Registry Decision O-316-09, Axle Associates Ltd v Gloucestershire Old Spots Pig Breeders' Club [2010] ETMR 12.
13. A. Dashwood, 'Hastening Slowly: The Communities' Path towards Harmonization
14. H. Wallace , W. Wallace and C. Webb Policy-Making in the European Community (Wiley, 1977), at 277-281.
15. Horizontal directives addressed transversal issues relevant to all foods. Among these, the most significant was Council Directive 79/112/EEC relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer, 1979 O.J. L 33/1.
16. Vertical directives established 'compositional rules' for specific foods and are often referred to as Community 'recipe laws'. For an in-depth analysis of these directives, see O. Brouwer, 'Community Protection of Geographical Indications and Specific Character as a Means of Enhancing Foodstuff Quality', (1991) 28 Common Market Law Review 615.
17. The doctrine of mutual recognition established in Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, paved the way for several cases challenging the compatibility of Member States' 'compositional rules' with Community law. See Case C-788/79
18. Italy v Herbert Gilli and Paul Andres [1980] ECR 2071
19. Case C-27/80
20. Anton Adriaan Fietje v Arrondissementsrechtbank Assen-Netherlands [1980] ECR 3839
21. Case C-261/81
22. Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v De Smedt PVBA [1982] ECR 3961.
23. Case C-12/74, Commission of the European Communities v the Federal Republic of Germany [1975] ECR 181
24. Throughout this paper, the term 'indications of geographical origin' is used as a neutral common denominator, adopting the terminology employed by the World Trade Organization Secretariat in its 'Review under Article 24.2' IP/C/W/253/Rev.1.
25. This is explicitly expressed in several documents, eg Commission communication transmitted to the Council and to the European Parliament, The future of rural society, COM (88) 501 final, as well as Communication of the Commission to the Council, The Development and Future of the CAP, Reflections Paper, COM(91)100. This recalibration took place in diverse areas of EU law; for instance, at around the same time, Community competition law shifted from the 'single market objective' to 'consumer welfare' and 'efficient allocation of resources'
26. P. Akman, 'Searching for the Long-Lost Soul of Article 82', (2009) 29 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 267.
27. Case C-298/87, Smanor SA [1988] ECR 4489
28. Case C-286/88, Ministere Public v Deserbais [1988] ECR 4907. This was followed by a European Commission interpretative communication on the names under which foodstuffs are sold O.J. 1991, C270/2.
29. See N. Olzsak, Droit des appellation d'origine et indications de provenance (Tec&Doc, 2001), at 393-448.
30. Though limited to cheese, an international protection regime bearing some similarities to the TSG was established by the Convention international sur l'emploi des appellations d'origine et dénominations de fromages, signed in Stresa in 1951.
31. In 1999, the European Commission submitted a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Reg. 2082/92, COM(1999) 374 final, highlighting several shortcomings of the CSC and suggesting solutions.
32. Recitals (2)-(4), Regulation 509/06 are notable exceptions.
33. Recitals, Regulation 2082/92
34. This is reaffirmed in recital (2), Regulation 509/06.
35. See Art 3, Reg 509/06.
36. Defined in Art 2, Reg 509/06.
37. See Art 6(2), Reg 509/06. The formalities and level of detail required for the product specification were established in Commission Regulation 1216/07/EC laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) no. 509/2006, 2007 O.J. L 275/3. This regulation repealed and replaced Commission Regulation 1848/93/EEC laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) no. 2082/92, 1993 O.J. L 168/35.
38. See Art 7(5), Reg 509/06.
39. Regulation 509/06 did not establish a harmonised appeal procedure against decisions at Member State level; the matter was left to national administrative laws. See the comments of A.G. Jacobs in ECR I-9517, at 50, 77. Carl Kühne v Jütro Konservenfabrik, 2001
40. European Institutions were not awarded such powers under Regulation 2082/92.
41. See Art 8, Reg 509/06.
42. See Art 9(3)(a)-(b), Reg 509/06.
43. See Art 9(2), Reg 509/06.
44. See Art 9(5), Reg 509/06. Though the provision uses the term 'interested parties', Art 8, Reg 1216/07 specified that these consultations exclusively involved Member States.
45. See Articles 5, 7, Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, 1999 O.J. L184/23. In this procedure the Commission was assisted by the Scientific Committee for designations of origin, Geographical Indications and certificates of specific character (established by Commission Decision 93/53/EEC, 1993 O.J. L13/16).
46. See Art 11(1), Reg 509/06.
47. See Art 10, Reg 509/06. By contrast, under Art 10, Reg 2082/92, a cancellation request could also be submitted by a Member State.
48. See Art 1, Reg 509/06.
49. Although Regulation 509/06 did not explicitly qualify 'specific character' as a product requirement, this was indisputable. First, Articles 2, 4(1), 7(2)(d) and 9(3)(a) implied that products had to be of specific character to qualify for a TSG. Second, recital (2), Articles 3(3), 4 and Annex III, Regulation 1216/07 expressly identified specific character as a requirement.
50. This definition closely mirrored that in Art 2(1), Reg 2082/92, despite the recitals of Regulation 509/06 explicitly mentioning the need to simplify the notion of 'specific character.'
51. The term 'pertain' in English is not particularly helpful; the French text employs the much clearer 'prévalent.'
52. For a discussion of how the 'specific character' requirement was addressed in TSG applications, see infra Part IV.C.a).
53. Art 4, Reg 509/06.
54. Art 2(1), Reg 509/06. Surprisingly, Regulation 2082/92 neglected to define this term.
55. OED Online, 'traditional, adj. and n.' (OUP, March 2012).
56. For a discussion of how the 'tradition' requirement was addressed in TSG applications, see infra Part IV.C.b).
57. See infra Part VI.D.a).
58. Art 3(1), TRIPS agreement establishes that 'each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property.'
59. See infra Part VIII.C.
60. Art 4(2), Reg 509/06.
61. Art 4(3), Reg 509/06.
62. For a discussion of the application of the rules governing registrable names under Regulation 509/06, see infra Part IV.C.c).
63. Established by Commission Regulation 2515/94/EC amending Regulation (EEC) no. 1848/93 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) no. 2082/92, 1994 O.J. L 275/1.
64. See Trade Mark Registry Decision O-316-09
65. Axle Associates Ltd v Gloucestershire Old Spots Pig Breeders' Club [2010] ETMR 12-21.
66. Art 17(1), Reg 509/06.
67. Art 17(3), Reg 509/06.
68. Art 17(2), Reg 509/06.
69. Council Regulation 40/94/EC on the Community Trade Marks, 1994 O.J. L11/1, Art 52(1)©. The same rule is also established in Art 4(4)©, Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, 2008 O.J. L 299/25.
70. In a similar vein, Art 5(2) provided that 'a plant variety or breed of animal may form part of the name of a traditional speciality guaranteed, provided that it is not misleading as regards the nature of the product.'
71. An exhaustive analysis of the scope of protection of trade marks, PDO and PGI falls outside of the scope of this work. Nevertheless, as an example, a TSG name comprising a trademarked geographic sign would be admissible, provided that it was used descriptively for the traditional food product. See infra Part V.A.b).
72. See recitals (9), (15), Regulation 509/06.
73. See Articles 14-16, Reg 509/06.
74. The data presented reflects the contents of the EU Database of Origin & Registration (DOOR) as of 3.1.2013.
75. DOOR details the timeline of past and present TSG applications submitted to the Commission. By contrast, not all Member States record and publicise this information.
76. Notable examples are Leche certificada de granja, 1997 O.J. C 21/15
77. Falukorv, O.J. C 78/182001
78. Boerenkaas O.J. C 316/162005
79. Spišské párky, O.J. C 95/342010
80. Liptovská saláma, 2010 O.J. C 103/15.
81. In this paragraph, CSC and TSG applications are considered as a unitary body. Divergences due to differences in the underlying regulations will be highlighted when appropriate.
82. eg Mozzarella, 1996 O.J. C 246/9
83. Pizza Napoletana, 2008 O.J. C 40/17
84. Špekacky, O.J. C 94/18.2010
85. Eg Panellets O.J. C 5/32001
86. Kalukko, 2001 O.J. C 235/04
87. Karjalanpiirakka, 2002 O.J. C 102/14.
88. Dwójniak, 2007 O.J. (C 268) 22 (EC).
89. Eg Jamón serrano, 1998 O.J. C 371/4
90. Vieille Kriek, Vieille Kriek-Lambic, Vieille Framboise-Lambic, Vieux Fruit-Lambic, O.J. C 21/5.1997
91. Hushållsost, 2003 O.J. C 110/18
92. Idrijski žlikrofi, O.J. C104/11.2009
93. Eg Belokranjska pogaèa, 2009 O.J. C 137/19.
94. eg Traditional farmfresh turkey, 1998 O.J. C 405/9
95. Olej Rydzowy, 2008 O.J. C 244/27
96. Skilandis, 2010 O.J. C 106/27.
97. Kabanosy, 2009 O.J., C 156/27.
98. Eg Pierekaczewnik, 2008 O.J. C 269/11, 2008
99. Traditionally Farmed Gloucestershire Old Spots Pork, 20009 O.J., C 238/8.
100. As exemplified by two recently-granted TSGs: Kielbasa jalowcowa (juniper sausage), 2009 O.J., C 158/24 and Kielbasa mysliwska (hunter's sausage), 2009 O.J., C 160/12.
101. P. Oliver Oliver on Free Movement of Goods in the European Union, (Hart Publishing, 2010), at 215-311
102. PDO and PGI total 680 and 692 applications, respectively.
103. More recently, see the Commission impact assessment report, SEC(2009)670, Addendum C, 4 and the Commission staff working paper impact assessment on traditional specialities guaranteed, SEC(2011)1525, 8.
104. PDO and PGI were easier to understand as they largely replicated the structure of pre-existing national regulatory schemes; for the legal lineage of these quality schemes
105. D. Gangjee, 'Melton Mowbray and the GI Pie in the Sky: Exploring Cartographies of Protection', (2006) 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly 291.
106. Under Art 17(1), Reg 509/06, the locution 'traditional speciality guaranteed' and the related symbol were protected against any 'misuse' and 'misleading use'; this broader protection, however, was not extended to TSG registered names, which were only protected against confusion, under Art 17(2).
107. On 'evocation,' see Case C-87/97, Cambozola [1999] ECR I-1301 and the opinion of A.G. Jacobs.
108. See Art 4(1), Council Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, 1989 O.J. L40/1
109. Art 8(1), Reg 40/94
110. Case C-251/95, SABEL BV v Puma AG, Rudolf Dassler Sport ECR I-6191.1997
111. See Art 4(3) Dir 89/104
112. Art 8(5) Reg 40/94
113. Case C-252/07, Intel Corporation Inc. v CPM United Kingdom Ltd ECR I-0000. [2008]
114. See Art 2(2), Reg 510/06.
115. European Commission, Green Paper on agricultural product quality: product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes, COM(2008) 641
116. DG Agriculture, Background paper to the green paper on agricultural product quality, 2008
117. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on agricultural product quality policy, COM 234 final, at 4.5.2009
118. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the quality of agricultural products O.J. C 175/15, at 25-26.2010
119. European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Conclusions from the Consultation on Agricultural Product Quality, 2009, at 3.11.
120. Council Conclusions on the Communication from the Commission on Agricultural Product Quality Policy, 16 June 2009
121. European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on agricultural product quality schemes, COM 733 final.2010
122. The powers granted to the Commission far exceed those under previous regulations governing quality schemes.
123. Recitals (1)-(6), Regulation 1152/12.
124. Recitals (9), Regulation 1152/12.
125. Recitals (10), Regulation 1152/12.
126. Recitals (13)-(14), Regulation 1152/12.
127. Recitals (46)-(50), Regulation 1151/12.
128. See recital (34), and also Art 17, Reg 1152/12.
129. Recital (35), Regulation 1151/12.
130. Recital (36), Regulation 1151/12.
131. Art 49(1)(a), Reg 1151/12.
132. For example, specifying the need to grant electronic access to the relevant documents, highlighting the issues raised by joint-Member States applications
133. See Articles 49(3), (7), Reg 1151/12.
134. Art 50(1)-(4), 51(1), Reg 1151/12.
135. Art 57, Reg 1151/12. See Regulation 182/2011/EU of the European Parliament and the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers, 2011 O.J. L55/13.
136. Art 54(1)(b), Reg 1151/12.
137. Compared to Regulation 509/06, soups, broths, ice creams, prepared condiment sauces and sorbets are no longer mentioned. Nevertheless, the exact remit of the TSG subject matter will hinge on the construction of the categories listed in Annex I.
138. In similar fashion to Regulation 509/06, 'specific character' is not explicitly framed as a product requirement under Regulation 1151/12
139. Art 3(3), Reg 1151/12.
140. Art 18(2), Reg 1151/12.
141. Art 24, Reg 1151/12.
142. Art 21(1)(b), Reg 1151/12.
143. See Case C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., formerly Pathé Communications Corporation ECR I-5507, at 28.1998
144. See Art 17(1), Reg 509/06 and Articles 8, 9, Council Regulation 207/2009/EC on the Community trade mark, O.J. L 78/1.
145. The application of Art 18(3), Reg 1151/12 will likely be clarified in greater detail in the implementing and delegated measures.2009
146. Though this issue is likely to be addressed by the implementing and delegated measures, Art 26(1), Reg 1151/12 already includes a solution to this issue. See infra Part VI.H.
147. The notion of 'generic terms' is defined in Art 3(6), Reg 1151/12. For the rules governing the assessment of whether a name is generic see Art 41(2), Reg 1151/12.
148. However, the provision further mandates that the following conditions must be met: 'a) the product in question comprises or is derived from the variety or breed indicated; b) consumers are not mislead; c) the usage of the name of the variety or breed name constitutes fair competition; d) the usage does not exploit the reputation of the protected term.'
149. Art 35(3), Reg 1151/12.
150. Art 37, Reg 1151/12.
151. Art 38, Reg 1151/12.
152. Art 40, Reg 1151/12.
153. The difference between the rules in Articles 18(3) and 26(1) is worthy of note.
154. See recital (39) and Art 23, Reg 1151/12.
155. G. Evans, 'The Simplification of European Legislation for the Protection of Geographical Indications: The Proposed Regulation on Agricultural Product Quality Schemes', (2012) 34 European Intellectual Property Review 770.
156. A.F. Ribeiro de Almeida, 'Key Differences between Trade Marks and Geographical Indications', (2009) 31 European Intellectual Property Review 410
157. D. Marie-Vivien, 'The Role of the State in the Protection of Geographical Indications: From Disengagement in France/Europe to Significant Involvement in India', (2010) 11 Journal of World Intellectual Property 121.
158. See European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: a reinforced value-added European strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe, COM(2012) 148 final.
159. G.A. Akerlof, 'The Market for Lemons: Quality, Uncertainty, and the Market Mechanism', (1970) 84 The Quarterly Journal of Economics 488
160. M.V. Thakor and A. Lavack, 'Effect of Perceived Brand Origin Associations on Consumer Perceptions of Quality', (2003) 12 Journal of Product & Brand Management 394.
161. Regulations 509/06 and 1151/12 mention 'improving income of farmers' without explicitly specifying small-scale producers
162. S.P. Ladas, Patents, Trademarks and Related Rights, National and International Protection (Harvard University Press, 1975), Vol.3, at 1572-1575
163. J. Audier, 'Pour une qualification juridique internationale de l'appellation d'origine' (2008) Bulletin O.I.V. 85. In the EU legal framework, Art 4(b), Reg 1151/12 explicitly qualifies PDO and PGI as intellectual property; this is also the case in Council Regulation 1383/2003/EC concerning customs actions against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights, 2003 O.J. L 196/7. Coextensively, the CJEU has repeatedly held that the PDO and PGI are intellectual property rights; see Case C-108/01, Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd and Hygrade Foods Ltd [2003] ECR 1-5121 at 64
164. Case C-3/91
165. Exportur SA v LOR SA [1992] ECR I-5529 at 28.
166. The legal categorisation of IGOs has been the object of a limited yet sophisticated body of scholarship. The prevailing view classifies these institutes as intellectual property
167. M. Plaisant and F. Jacq, Traité des noms et appellations d'origine, (Librairie Arthur Rousseau, 1921), at 40-54
168. J-M. Auby and R. Plaisant, Le droit des appellations d'origine, l'appellation d'origine Cognac (LiTec, 1974), at 67-76
169. J. Audier, 'De la nature juridique de l'appellation d'origine' (1993) Bulletin O.I.V. 21
170. M.C. Piatti, 'L'appellation d'origine (essai de qualification' (1999) Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial 567
171. J. Audier, 'Passé, présent et avenir des appel vers la globalisation?' (2008) Bulletin O.I.V. 417, 425-427
172. S. Visse-Causse, L'appellation d'origine: valorisation du terroir (A.D.E.F., 2005), at 207-208
173. S. Stern, 'Are GIs IP?', (2007) 29 European Intellectual Property Review 39
174. A. Jokuti, 'Where is the What if the What is in Why? A Rough Guide to the Maze of Geographical Indications', (2009) 31 European Intellectual Property Review 118, 122-123
175. C. Le Goffic, La protections des indications géographiques (Litec, 2010), at 233-263
176. J. Kohler, Das Autorrecht: eine zivilistische Abhandlung (Fischer, )for an analysis of its evolution see 1880
177. A. Troller, Immaterialgüterrecht (Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1983