Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T09:04:18.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do you Prefer Scotch or German Whisky? CJEU Judgment in the Scotch Whisky and Glen Buchenbach Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2019

Vadim MANTROV
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case C-44/17, Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz, 7 June 2018 (Fifth Chamber)

The CJEU issued a preliminary ruling in a dispute between the protected indication of geographical origin Scotch Whisky and the disputed sign Glen Buchenbach over the right to use the designation Glen. The CJEU provided further clarification of the four protection norms for safeguarding protected indications of geographical origin. Commencing with interpreting the phrase “any direct or indirect commercial use”, the CJEU established that the term “use” refers to the visual appearance of a protected indication covering its use in either an identical or similar form in the disputed sign. The terms “direct” and “indirect” refer to the way in which appearance takes place: the former term covers affixing a disputed sign directly on the product (ie labelling); the latter term comprises other forms of use such as advertising or accompanying documents. Further, the CJEU held that “evocation” means evaluating whether an average European consumer thinks directly of a protected indication of geographical origin when confronted with an infringing sign. Finally, the CJEU averred that assessing whether a disputed sign is used either as an evocation or as a “false and misleading indication” does not depend on the context in which the sign is used.

Article 16 of 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 L - 8, of 13.2.2008, pp 16–54 [Spirits Regulation].

Type
Case Commentaries
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 719 - 729
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 

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.)

Footnotes

*

University of Latvia, Faculty of Law, Riga, Latvia, [email protected].

References

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

2 In this article, the concept “protected IGO” means a qualified IGO registered at EU level under the respective regulation.

3 See, for instance, R Knaak, “Case law of the European Court of Justice on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin pursuant to EC Regulation 2081/92” (2001) 32 IIC 382; C Heath, “Parmigiano Reggiano by another name: the ECJ’s Parmesan decision” (2008) 39 IIC 958; V Mantrov, “Protection Norms of Indications of Geographical Origin in the Applicable Regulations: Recent Changes and the Necessity for Further Unification” (2012) 43 IIC 174.

4 Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10 Bureau national interprofessionnel du Cognac v Gust Ranin Oy [2011] I-06131 Konjakki, Konjakkia, para 46; Case C-393/16 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co OHG (CJEU, 20 December 2017) – Champagner Sorbet, para. 39.

5 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs [1992] OJ L 208/1.

6 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 [2006] OJ L 93/12; 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 [2012] OJ L 343/1.

7 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 [2008] OJ L 39/16.

8 Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 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 [2008] OJ L 148/1.

9 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 [2014] OJ L 84/14.

10 These cases are discussed further in Section IV.

11 Case C-44/17 Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz (CJEU, 7 June 2018).

12 This case concerned use of the name itself but not the right to call a product “whisky”. For a useful discussion of cases involving the right to call a product “whisky” see Blakeney, M, The Protection of Geographical Indications: Law and Practice (Edward Elgar 2014) 280–283 Google Scholar .

13 This listing of facts in the Court’s judgment is clearly based on a description of the facts provided in the Opinion of Advocate General Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe (Case C-44/17 Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz (2018) Opinion of AG Øe, paras. 9–14).

14 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks [1989] OJ L 160/1.

15 Art 18(2) Regulation No 1576/89.

16 As the Advocate General noted, there is a dispute over the conceptual meaning (conceptual proximity in the terminology used by the CJEU and the Advocate General) of this word between the parties to the main proceedings before the national court (see C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe, paras. 67–68). Therefore, establishing the conceptual meaning of the word “Glen” remains within the competence of the national court as indicated by the Advocate General (see C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe, para. 68).

17 MM Slitisa, “Whisky from the Banks of the River Schlitz” 28 March 2016, available at <germanwhisky.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/slitisa-whisky-from-the-banks-of-the-river-schlitz/>.

18 Whisky from the Heart of Germany, available at <www.glenels.de/english-1/the-whisky/>.

19 Case C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe.

20 Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10, paras. 53–56; Case C-393/16, paras. 30–36.

21 Case C-44/17, para. 31.

22 Art 5(1) Trade Mark Directive (Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks [2015] OJ L 336/1 [Trade Mark Directive]; Art 8(1) Trade Mark Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark [2017] OJ L 154/1 [Trade Mark Regulation].

23 Case C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe, para. 25.

24 Case C-44/17, para. 32.

25 Art 10(3) Trade Mark Directive; Art 9(3) Trade Mark Regulation.

26 Case C-44/17, paras. 33–34.

27 ibid, para. 33.

28 Case 44/17, paras. 36, 38.

29 ibid, para. 52.

30 ibid.

31 ibid, para. 53.

32 ibid, para. 58.

33 ibid, para. 71.

34 ibid, para. 68.

35 ibid.

36 Case 44/17, para. 63.

37 This fact explains why the term “evocation” is discussed separately in European legal literature,while other terms envisaged in the four protection norms are not (see eg V Paganizza, “More Holes than Cheese: PDOs, Evocation and a Possible Solution” (2015) EFFL 222; V Rubino, “From ‘Cambozola’ to ‘Toscoro’: The Difficult Distinction between ‘Evocation’ of a Protected Geographical Indication, ‘Product Affinity’ and Misleading Commercial Practices” (2017) EFFL 326).

38 Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH [1999] I-01301 – Cambozola.

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

40 Case C-75/15 Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (CJEU, 21 January 2016). For comment, see A Volpato, “On Consumer, Evocation and Cider Spirit” (2016) EFFL 140.

41 Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10.

42 Case C-393/16.

43 Cognac/Konjakki/Konjakkia concerned interpretation of the first two protection norms; Champagne and Champagner Sorbet concerned interpretation of the first three protection norms. Note that in the former case the CJEU interpreted all four protection norms, an interpretation that was approved in the latter case.

44 The dispute involving Gorgonzola/Cambozola and Parmigiano Reggiano/Parmesan related to interpretation of Regulation No 2081/92; Calvados/Verlados and Cognac/Konjakki/Konjakkia related to interpretation of the Spirits Regulation, whose interpretation was sought in the present case as well; Champagne and Champagner Sorbet – Regulations No 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation) and 1308/2013.

45 Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs SEC (90) 2415 final, 21 January 1991, available at <aei.pitt.edu/9910/1/9910.pdf>; amended proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs COM (92) 32 final [1992] OJ C 69.

46 Commission, “Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks” COM (2005) 0125 final.

47 Supra, n 45.

48 This conclusion also applies to the wording in which the four protection norms are expressed. As noted by the Advocate General, “the wording of Article 16(b) [ie the second protection norm] does not contain elements that allow for precise identification of what is meant by ‘evocation’ of a protected geographical indication” (see Case C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe, para. 53).

49 Case C-44/17, para. 33.

50 ibid, para. 34.

51 Case C-87/97, para. 25.

52 Case C-132/05, paras. 25–31.

53 Case C-44/17, para. 65.

54 Case C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe, para. 20.

55 Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10, paras. 53, 55.

56 Note that legal scholars have not so far paid great attention to discussion of the first protection norm, in contrast to discussion of the term “evocation” (for discussion of the latter term in legal literature see Rubino, supra, note 37, 327).

57 Knaak, supra, note 3, 382.

58 Mantrov, supra, note 3, 188; see reference to similar opinions of German legal scholars in the present case (Case C-44/17 Opinion of AG Øe, para. 24).

59 For instance, Knaak, supra, note 3, 382; Mantrov, supra, note 3, 188.

60 Case C-44/17, para. 10.

61 Case C-87/97, para. 27; Case C-132/05, para. 46.

62 Case C-87/97, para. 27; Case C-132/05, para. 46.

63 Both these protection models of distinctive signs should be understood within the area of civil liability (for systems of civil liability models, see eg J Karklins, “Idea of Strict Liability in Private Law” (2017) 10 Juridiskā zinātne / Law 176.

64 Case C-44/17, para. 68.

65 Knaak, supra, note 3, 385.