InternationalUSRemember you can easily switch between MIP US and MIP International at any time

EU: Hangover for PDOs




Producers of champagne probably did not have a toast to the recent ruling of the CJEU about protected designations of origin (PDOs). The CJEU has broadened the possibilities for commercial parties to use PDOs, such as "champagne", opening the door to various (allowed) usages of PDOs for products that do not correspond to the product specifications.

The case started when foodstuffs company Aldi was sued by CIVC (an association of champagne producers) over the use of the name "Champagner sorbet" in connection with a sorbet product with a champagne flavor. CIVC claimed that Aldi was exploiting the reputation of the PDO "champagne" and therefore misusing the word "champagne", referring to the strict rules that apply to the use of PDOs.

The court first established that the regulation regarding the organisation of the markets in agricultural products also applies in case the product for which a PDO is used contains an ingredient that corresponds to the product file. So as a result, the claims against Aldi can be made under this regulation. Further in the decision, the court reaffirms one of the ratios of protecting PDOs, namely to offer a guarantee of quality.

However, not every use of a PDO for a product that contains one of the relevant ingredients is forbidden, and the mere use in itself does not constitute an unlawful act. The circumstances of each case need to be taken into account for such determination. The CJEU further holds that the use of the PDO is not unlawful if the product contains an ingredient that confers on the foodstuff involved one of its essential characteristics. In particular, where the name of the foodstuff indicates that it contains an ingredient protected by a PDO, which is intended to convey the taste of the foodstuff, the taste imparted by that ingredient must constitute the essential characteristic of that foodstuff. In other words, the use of a PDO by a commercial party is considered lawful if the foodstuff involved has the same taste as the foodstuff for which the PDO is protected.

Manufacturers of foodstuffs will be happy to learn that they can use PDOs more liberally. The possibilities for them to create the same flavors seem endless, and no doubt many manufacturers will follow Aldi.

Jurriaan Cleuver

V.O.
Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJ
The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 416 67 11
Fax: +31 70 416 67 99


Comments






profile

Managing IP

ManagingIP

ManagingIP profile

RT @UPCtracker: This is one of nine (9) cases allocated to Justice Prof Huber (among them consolidated complaint re: adequate legal protect…

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

The complaint against the legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is includ… https://t.co/91NMMhmuYn

Feb 21 2018 05:15 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
ManagingIP profile

Pfizer argued that plausibility should be an "evidential tool" not a "threshold test", while Actavis warned against… https://t.co/EqhdqxmE6J

Feb 21 2018 05:09 ·  reply ·  retweet ·  favourite
More from the Managing IP blog


null null null

null null null

February 2018

FRAND aid: Is the European Commission’s SEP guidance useful?

Both patent owners and implementers have welcomed the European Commission’s communication on standard essential patents. Does that mean it has successfully balanced competing interests or merely dodged the difficult questions? James Nurton investigates



Most read articles

Supplements