Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
evocation' or a 'misleading indication'. This in turn would depend upon whether
the relevant consumers would regard the relevant designation of a sub-region as
referring to the registered designation.
3.180
The question raised in Case C-87/97
118
was whether a PDO 'GORGON-
ZOLA (ITALY )' was infringed if the packaging of the cheese designated as
'CAMBOZOLA' bore a clearly visible indication of the country of manufacture
(Deutscher Weichkäse [German soft cheese]), also where that cheese was as a
rule not displayed and sold to consumers in the form of whole cheeses, but in
pieces, sometimes without the original packaging.
3.181
The ECJ ruled that since the product at issue is a soft blue cheese which was not
dissimilar in appearance to Gorgonzola, it was reasonable to conclude that a
protected name was evoked, within the meaning of Art 13(1)(b) of Regulation
No 2081/92, 'where the term used to designate that product ends in the same
two syllables and contains the same number of syllables, with the result that the
phonetic and visual similarity between the two terms is obvious'. In that
connection, the ECJ stated that it was appropriate for the national court to take
into account advertising material published by the defendant which suggested
that the phonetic similarity between the two names was not fortuitous.
3.182
It will be recalled that in Case C-132/05
119
the German government had
argued unsuccessfully that it did not need to enforce the PDO 'PARMI-
GIANO REGGIANO' in its territory on the grounds that the term 'Parmesan'
had become a generic name for hard cheeses of diverse origins, grated or
intended to be grated. Another unsuccessful argument of the Federal Republic
of Germany was that the use of the word 'Parmesan' did not infringe Art
13(1)(b) of Regulation No 2081/92, given that it was distinct from the full
PDO 'PARMIGIANO REGGIANO'. This involved a consideration by the
Court of whether in the terms of Art 13(1)(b) of that regulation, there was 'any
misuse, imitation or evocation' of the PDO.
3.183
With regard to the evocation of a PDO, the Court noted that it had held that
that term covered a situation where the term used to designate a product
incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is
confronted with the name of the product, the image brought to his mind is that
of the product whose designation is protected.
120
In the present case, the Court
118
Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Eduard
Bracharz GmbH
[1999] ECR I-1301.
119
Commission of the European Communities v Germany
[2008] ECR I-957; [2008] ETMR 32.
120
Case C-87/97
Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola
[1999] ECR I-1301, para 25.
