Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
5.122
The Scotch Whisky Association brought proceedings before the Tribunal de
Grande Instance, Paris, against Cofepp, Prisunic SA and Centrale d'Achats et
de Services Alimentaires SARL (Casal), seeking, inter alia, a finding that they
had engaged in unfair competition against it by marketing their diluted
whisky-based drinks on the same shelves as complying whiskies. In relation to
questions put to the ECJ it held that Art 1(4) of Regulation No 1576/89,
specifically provided that the term 'whisky' may not appear in the sales
description of such a product.
24
Cofepp also argued that 'whisky' was a generic term inside a compound term
and exonerated by Art 7(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1014/90 of
24 April 1990 laying down detailed implementing rules on the definition,
description and presentation of spirit drinks.
25
5.123
The Court followed the approach of the Advocate General who observed that
the words 'spiritueux au whisky' did not constitute a compound term within the
meaning of Art 7b of Regulation No 1014/90, as by 'compound term', 'the
Community legislature intended to refer to a combination of the names of two
different drinks, not the combination of the words “spirit” and “whisky”, whisky
being itself a spirit'.
26
5.124
Scotch Whisky Association v JD Vintners Ltd
27
concerned an action by the trade
association of the proprietors of the vast majority of the leading brands of
Scotch Whisky. The defendant sold a spirit with an alcoholic strength of 30 per
cent called 'Canadian Whisky'. After the coming into force of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the
definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks,
28
which provided that a
spirit which was to have the name of 'whisky' or 'whiskey' was to have a
minimum alcoholic strength of 40 per cent, the defendant changed the name of
the spirit to 'Light Canadian Rye'. The plaintiffs issued proceedings claiming
that the sale of the spirit as 'Light Canadian Rye' represented a breach of the
provision in the Regulation that required spirit with an alcoholic strength of
under 40 per cent to be described and sold as 'spirit' or a 'spirit drink'.
5.125
The defendant applied for the part of the cause of action based in breaches of
the Regulation to be struck out. It was contended that any breach of the
Regulation did not give rise to a private action in damages because the
5.126
24
[1996] ECR I-04571, at para 33.
25
OJ 1990 L 105, p. 9.
26
1996] ECR I-04571, at para 43.
27
[1997] EuLR 446.
28
OJ 1989 L 160, p. 1 (
no longer in force
).
