Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
much as the locality of Warstein was largely unknown to the general public,
and, in any event, the reputation of its beer did not depend on particular
characteristics attributable to that locality. It also pointed out that there were
other beers bearing names referring to a geographical source which did not
come exclusively from the place thereby designated.
3.174
After ordering a consumer survey, the Landgericht, Mannheim, granted the
injunction sought by the Schutzverband. On appeal, the Oberlandesgericht
(Higher Regional Court), Karlsruhe, by order of 14 February 1996, quashed the
judgment of the Landgericht and dismissed the action of the Schutzverband. It
held that a market survey that had been ordered by the lower court showed that
the name at issue did not significantly mislead consumers.
3.175
The Bundesgerichtshof then observed that the prohibition on labelling a
product with inaccurate information as to its geographical source was justified
in order to protect competitors, so that GIs of source should also be protected
where the source of a product has no influence on the consumer's purchasing
decision. According to the Bundesgerichtshof, the protection of simple GIs of
source provided for in para 127(1) of the Markengesetz was not subject to the
condition that such indications should be familiar to the public as such, that is
to say, in the case in the main proceedings, as a reference to a place called
'Warstein', but simply required that the locality indicated should not be wholly
inconceivable as the place of production because of its specific character or the
particular nature of the product. Nor was that protection subject to the
condition that the consumer should associate particular qualities with that
indication, attributable to regional or local characteristics.
3.176
Since it considered that the case turned on the interpretation of Regulation No
2081/92, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and referred to the
ECJ the question whether Regulation No 2081/92 precluded application of a
national provision which prohibits the misleading use of a simple geographical
designation of source, that is, an indication in the case of which there is no link
between the characteristics of the product and its geographical provenance.
3.177
The Court observed that in the absence of common rules relating to the
production and marketing of a product, it was in principle for the Member
States to regulate all matters relating to the marketing of that product on their
own territory, including its description and labelling, subject to any Community
measure adopted with a view to approximating national laws in these fields.
Regulation No 2081/92 only concerned GIs in respect of which there was a
direct link between both a specific quality, reputation or other characteristic of
the product and its specific geographical origin. Thus, simple GIs of source
