Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:04:00.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Cases of Edam Holland and Gouda Holland

Continuing Road Back Home as Protected Indications of Geographical Origin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Vadim Mantrov
Vadim Mantrov*
Affiliation:
Docent at the University of Latvia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Cases C-517/14 P and C-519/P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie, unreported 24 October 2014 (Seventh Chamber).

In the two related cases commented on, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) dealt with assessment of locus standi in the case of an applicant who disputed the validity of registration of two indications of geographical origin (IGOs), namely Edam Holland and Gouda Holland, being compound designations and containing a famous generic word designation (name), i.e. Edam and Gouda respectively. The importance of both cases relates, on the one hand, to the fact that registration of these IGOs was challenged on the basis of the generic names Edam and Gouda which are extensively used in practice, occupying a considerable market share. On the other, both cases could be a signal whether the CJEU re–affirms its restrictive approach to assessment of locus standi under Article 263 (4) TFEU. Although the CJEU re–affirmed its longstanding case law on restrictive assessment of locus standi also concerning registration of a compound geographical designation on the basis of a generic name, yet, as is argued in this case note, this approach did not take into account the specifics of registering IGOs (author's summary).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 444 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Within this article, the concept of IGOs covers geographical designations referring either directly or indirectly to the geographical origin of goods (and services if applicable, for instance, in the case of the so–called indirect protection system or national law of EU Member States).

2 For an overview of types of IGO, see, for instance, Mantrov, Vadim, EU law on indications of geographical origin (Cham: Springer, 2014), at pp. 48–52.Google Scholar

3 For division of EU law on IGOs into direct and indirect protection systems, see generally Vadim Mantrov, “Protection Norms of Indications of Geographical Origin in the Applicable EU Regulations – Recent Changes and the Necessity for Further Unification”, 43 IIC (2012), at pp. 175-184; Mantrov, EU law on indications of geographical origin, supra note 2, at pp. 139-145.

4 Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, OJ 2012 L 343/1 [Quality Schemes Regulation].

5 Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 OJ 2008 L 39/16 [2008 Spirits Regulation].

6 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 OJ 2013 L 347/671 [CMO Regulation].

7 Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91 OJ 2014 L 84/14 [2014 Aromatised Wines Regulation].

8 Case C-120/08, Bavaria NV v Bayerischer Brauerbund eV [2010] ECR I-13393 – Bayerisches Bier.

9 Case C-132/05, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany [2008] I-00957 – Parmesan/ Parmiggiano Reggiano.

10 Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97, Criminal proceedings against Yvon Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak (C-129/97) and Jean–Pierre Fol (C-130/97) [1998] ECR I-03315 - Époisses de Bourgogne.

11 O’Connor, Bernard , The Law of Geographical Indications (London: Cameron May, 2004), at p. 138 Google Scholar; Blakeney, Michael, The Protection of Geographical Indications: Law and Practice (Cheltenham; UK, Northampton; MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014), at p. 116.Google Scholar

12 Mastroianni, Roberto and Pezza, Andrea, “Striking the Right Balance: Limits on the Right to Bring an Action under Article 263 (4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”, 30 American University International Law Review (2015), at pp. 746 et sqq.Google Scholar

13 Case T-114/96, Confiserie du TECH SA and Biscuiterie Confiserie LOR SA v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECR II-00913 – Turrón de Jijona and Turrón de Alicante.

14 Case T-78/98, Unione provinciale degli agricoltori di Firenze, Unione pratese degli agricoltori, Consorzio produttori dell'olio tipico di oliva della provincia di Firenze, Francesco Miari Fulcis, Bonaccorso Gondi, Simone Giannozzi and Antonio Morino v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECR II-01377 – Toscano.

15 Case T-114/99, CSR PAMPRYL v Commission of the European Communities [1999] ECR II-03331 – Pays d'Auge/Pays d'Auge–Cambremer.

16 Case C-447/98 P, Molkerei Großbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities [2000] ECR I-09097 – Altenburger Ziegenkäse.

17 Case T-35/06, Honig–Verband eV v Commission of the European Communities [2007] ECR II-02865 – Miel de Provence.

18 For an overview of the characteristics of these two cheese varieties, see Düsterhöft, M., Engels, W. and van den Berg, G., “Cheese | Dutch–Type Cheeses”, in Fuquay, John W., Fox, Patrick F., McSweeney, Paul (eds.), Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, 2nd ed. (Boston: MA, Elsevier, 2011), at pp. 721–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Hickey, M., “Cheese | Current Legislation for Cheeses”, in Fuquay, John W., Fox, Patrick F., McSweeney, Paul (eds.), Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences, 2nd ed. (Boston: MA, Elsevier, 2011), at pp. 843–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 Gouda Cheese Capital. Available on the Internet at <http://www.goudakaasstad.nl/en/home#kaasstad> (last accessed on 26 February 2016).

21 International Convention on the Use of Designations of Origin and Names for Cheeses, signed at Stresa on 1 June 1951 [Stresa Convention].

22 For details of the Stresa Convention, see, for instance, Blakeney, Michael, Intellectual Property Rights and Food Security (Wallingford, UK; Cambridge, USA: CABI, 2009), at p. 189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Echols, Marsha A., Geographical Indications for Food Products: International Legal and Regulatory Perspectives (AH Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2008), at pp. 48 et sqq Google Scholar; O’Connor, The Law of Geographical Indications, supra note 11, at pp. 34-36.

23 European Commission, 1996, Press Release IP/96/153. Available on the Internet at <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-96-153_en.htm> (last accessed on 26 February 2016).

24 Case 286/86, Ministère public v Gérard Deserbais [1988] ECR 04907 – Deserbais.

25 Craig, Paul and Búrca, Gráinne de, EU law: Text, Cases and Materials, 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), at p. 680.Google Scholar

26 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 OJ 1996 L 148/1.

27 Case C-108/01, Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma and Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd and Hygrade Foods Ltd [2003] ECR I-05121, at paras. 19, 91-99; Case C-469/00 Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL and Biraghi SpA [2003] ECR I-05053 – Grana Padano, at paras. 15, 95-104; Case T-114/96 – Turrón de Jijona and Turrón de Alicante, supra note 13, at paras. 6, 12.

28 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96, at footnotes 18-19.

29 Facts concerning the proceedings at the national stage and before the General Court and the CJEU are summarised in the discussed CJEU orders (Case C-517/14 P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie [2015] ECR I-00000 – Edam Holland, at paras. 8-11; Case-519/14 P, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission [2015] ECR I-00000 – Gouda Holland, at paras. 8-11).

30 Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs OJ 2008 C 57/39 (Edam); Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs OJ 2008 C 61/15 (Gouda).

31 Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs OJ 2006 L 93/12 [2006 Foodstuffs Regulation].

32 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1122/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)] OJ 2010 L 317/22, preamble, at paras. 2-3; Commission Regulation (EU) No 1121/2010 of 2 December 2010 entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)] OJ 2010 L 317/14, preamble, at paras. 2-3.

33 Now Art 51 (3) Quality Schemes Regulation.

34 Though later minor amendments were introduced to the specification of both registered PGIs (Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council OJ 2015 C 310/8 [Edam Holland]; Publication of an application for approval of a minor amendment in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council OJ 2015 C 310/14 [Gouda Holland]).

35 Art 1 (1) Regulation No 1122/2010; Art 1 (1) Regulation No 1121/2010.

36 Art. 1 (2) Regulation No 1122/2010, Art. 1 (2) Regulation No 1121/2010.

37 Case C-517/14 P – Edam Holland, supra note 29, at paras. 19-21; Case C-519/14 P – Gouda Holland, supra note 29, at paras. 19-21.

38 Case C-517/14 P – Edam Holland, supra note 29, at para. 30; Case C-519/14 P – Gouda Holland, supra note 29, at para. 30.

39 Similarly to the currently effective Quality Schemes Regulation but differently from other Regulations within the direct protection system to be discussed further in the next section.

40 Case C-517/14 P – Edam Holland, supra note 29, at para. 34; Case C-519/14 P – Gouda Holland, supra note 29, at para. 34.

41 Case C-517/14 P – Edam Holland, supra note 29, at para. 36; Case C-519/14 P – Gouda Holland, supra note 29, at para. 36.

42 Case C-517/14 P – Edam Holland, supra note 29, at para. 40; Case C-519/14 P – Gouda Holland, supra note 29, at para. 40.

43 For an overview of this provision in general, see generally Türk, Alexander H, Judicial Review in EU Law (Cheltenham; UK, Northampton; MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009), at pp. 166–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Werkmeister, Christoph, Pötters, Stephan, Traut, Johannes, “Regulatory Acts within Article 263 (4) TFEU – A Dissonant Extension of Locus Standi for Private Applicants”, 13 The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (2011), at pp. 311 et sqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Werkmeister, Pötters, Traut, “Regulatory Acts within Article 263 (4) TFEU – A Dissonant Extension of Locus Standi for Private Applicants”, supra note 43, at pp. 329-330.

45 As the second criterion for establishing locus standi also applies to Regulations being regulatory acts (see Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law, supra note 43, at pp. 167-168).

46 For the first two cases decided by the General Court on the application of Art 263 (4) TFEU in relation to this second criterion, see Steve Peers and Marios Costa, “Court of Justice of the European Union (General Chamber) Judicial Review of EU Acts after the Treaty of Lisbon; Order of 6 September 2011, Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Commission & Judgment of 25 October 2011, Case T-262/10 Microban v. Commission”, 8 European Constitutional Law Review (2012), at pp. 82 – 104.

47 Art 263 (2) TFEU.

48 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name “Feta” OJ 2002 L 277/10.

49 Joined cases C-465/02 and C-466/02, Federal Republic of Germany (C-465/02) and Kingdom of Denmark (C-466/02) v Commission of the European Communities [2005] ECR I-09115 – Feta II.

50 Case T-397/02, Arla Foods AMBA and Others v Commission of the European Communities [2005] ECR II-05365; Case T-370/02, Alpenhain–Camembert–Werk and Others v Commission of the European Communities [2004] ECR II-02097.

51 Case T-112/11, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV v Commission (Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication [2014] ECR II-00000 – Edam Holland, at para. 24; Case T-113/11, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse eV v European Commission [2014] ECR II-00000 – Gouda Holland, at para. 24.

52 See Case T-114/96 – Turrón de Jijona and Turrón de Alicante, supra note 13, at para. 26 et sqq.; T-35/06 – Miel de Provence, supra note 17, at para. 39 et sqq.; Case C-447/98 P – Altenburger Ziegenkäse, supra note 16, at para. 63 et sqq.; Case T-114/99 – Pays d'Auge/Pays d'Auge–Cambremer, supra note 15, para 41 et sqq.; Case T-78/98 – Toscano, supra note 14, at para. et sqq.

53 For a discussion of this restrictive approach, see Werkmeister, Pötters, Traut, “Regulatory Acts within Article 263 (4) TFEU – A Dissonant Extension of Locus Standi for Private Applicants”, supra note 43, at pp. 312-313.

54 Case C-517/14 P – Edam Holland, supra note 29, at paras. 38 and 42; Case C-519/14 P – Gouda Holland, supra note 29, at paras. 38 and 42.

55 Case T-112/11 – Edam Holland, supra note 51, at para. 45; Case T-113/11 – Gouda Holland, supra note 51, at para. 45.

56 Case T-112/11 – Edam Holland, supra note 51, at para. 30; Case T-113/11 – Gouda Holland, supra note 51, at para. 30.

57 Case T-112/11 – Edam Holland, supra note 51, at para. 42; Case T-113/11 – Gouda Holland, supra note 51, at para. 42.

58 Case T-35/06 – Miel de Provence, supra note 17, at paras. 47-53.

59 See Art. 7 (2) and (3) 2006 Foodstuffs Regulation (now Arts. 51(1) second subpara. and 10 Quality Schemes Regulation).

60 See Art. 51 (1) and (2) Quality Schemes Regulation.

61 Art. 7 (2) third para 2006 Foodstuffs Regulation.

62 With an exception in the case of IGOs in respect of certain products such as wines including aromatised wines when this person should be from an EU or non EU MS other than that applying for the protection or in a third country (Art. 15 (1) 2014 Aromatised Wines Regulation; Art. 98 (1) CMO Regulation).

63 Art. 15 2014 Aromatised Wines Regulation; Art. 17 (7) 2008 Spirits Regulation; Art. 98 CMO Regulation.

64 Art. 2 (2) 2006 Foodstuffs Regulation.

65 Differently from IGOs in relation to other agricultural products and foodstuffs products: apparently in relation to spirits (Art. 15 (1) the 2008 Spirits Regulation) and aromatised wines (Art. 10 (1) (a) 2014 Aromatised Wines Regulation); explicitly in relation to other agricultural products and foodstuffs (Art. 93 (2) CMO Regulation).

66 This is testified to both by the fact that the Quality Schemes Regulation does not explicitly provide for the possibility and the lack of corresponding provision in the Quality Schemes Regulation as reflected in Art. 2 (2) 2006 Foodstuffs Regulation (see Annex II Quality Schemes Regulation).