1.

Balsam is an aromatic and oily substance which flows as a sap from various plants. It has for millennia been used as a base for medicines, ointments and fragrances. The use of balsam for these purposes is well established in European tradition and culture. There are several references to the use of balsam (or balm) for healing purposes in both the Bible and the plays of Shakespeare alike and, of course, in Wagner’s final opera, Parsifal, we learn that the suffering and intense pain of the stricken king Amfortas can only be eased by the administration to his otherwise incurable wound of a phial of balsam obtained from Arabia.

2.

It is thus that the word ‘balsam’ (and cognate words such as ‘balm’) has historically entered our contemporary understanding. Nowadays, of course, the word ‘balsam’ is often associated with the very well-known product, ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’. This is a very dark, concentrated and flavoured vinegar which is made from seasoned (and partially fermented) grapes which age for several years in a series of wooden barrels. ( 2 ) As it happens, the product itself does not contain balsam, but the Italian word ‘balsamico’ means ‘balsam-like’. The use of the adjective ‘balsamico’ to describe the vinegar (‘aceto’) is thus used in the sense of highlighting the curative or healing and generally balsam-like qualities which the product was originally thought to possess.

3.

All of this raises the issue of whether the word ‘balsamico’ is entitled to protection as a geographical indication in its own right. This is the essential question which arises in the present request for a preliminary ruling, which was lodged by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) at the Registry of the Court on 2 July 2018 and which concerns the interpretation of Article 1 of and Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009. It was this particular regulation which entered the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications.

4.

By its question, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the protection afforded by the registration of the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ extends also to the use of individual non-geographical components ( 3 ) of that name, namely the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ and ‘Aceto Balsamico’. Before examining these questions, it is necessary first to set out the relevant legal provisions.

5.

Regulation No 583/2009 was adopted on the basis of 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. ( 4 ) Regulation No 510/2006 was repealed from 3 January 2013 by Article 58(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. ( 5 ) In accordance with Article 58(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012, references inter alia to the repealed Regulation No 510/2006 shall be construed as references to Regulation No 1151/2012. ( 6 )

6.

Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012 states that ‘generic terms ’‘means the names of products which, although relating to the place, region or country where the product was originally produced or marketed, have become the common name of a product in the Union’.

7.

Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012 provides that:

‘For the purpose of this Regulation, “geographical indication” is a name which identifies a product:

8.

Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 states:

‘Generic terms shall not be registered as protected designations of origin or protected geographical indications.’

9.

Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 entitled ‘Protection’ states:

‘1.   Registered names shall be protected against:

Where a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication contains within it the name of a product which is considered to be generic, the use of that generic name shall not be considered to be contrary to points (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph.

2.   Protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications shall not become generic.

…’

10.

Article 41 of Regulation No 1151/2012 entitled ‘Generic terms’ provides:

‘1.   Without prejudice to Article 13, this Regulation shall not affect the use of terms that are generic in the Union, even if the generic term is part of a name that is protected under a quality scheme.

2.   To establish whether or not a term has become generic, account shall be taken of all relevant factors, in particular:

3.   In order to fully protect the rights of interested parties, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 56, laying down additional rules for determining the generic status of terms referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.’

11.

Recitals 2 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Regulation No 583/2009 provide:

…

…

12.

Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 provides:

‘The name contained in Annex I to this Regulation shall be entered in the register.’

13.

Annex I of Regulation No 583/2009 refers to ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’.

14.

BALEMA GmbH (‘BALEMA’) produces vinegar-based products and markets them in the Baden region (Germany). For at least 25 years, it has been selling products under the designations ‘Balsamico’ and ‘Deutscher Balsamico’. The labels on its products bear the legend ‘Theo der Essigbrauer, Holzfassreifung, Deutscher Balsamico traditionell, naturtrüb aus badischen Weinen’ [Theo the vinegar brewer, matured in wooden barrels, German balsamic vinegar, traditional, naturally cloudy, made from Baden wine] or ‘1. Deutsches Essig-Brauhaus, Premium, 1868, Balsamico, Rezeptur No 3’ [first German vinegar brewery, premium, 1868, balsamic, recipe No 3].

15.

It is agreed that BALEMA’s products designated as ‘Balsamico’ are not covered by the registration ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ pursuant to Article 1 of and Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009 because they do not fulfil the product specifications contained in Annex II of that regulation.

16.

Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena (‘the Consorzio’) is a consortium of producers of the products designated by the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’. It considers that BALEMA’s use of the designation ‘Balsamico’ infringes the protected geographical indication ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’. The Consorzio thus served a warning notice on BALEMA. BALEMA in turn brought an action in the German courts against the Consorzio seeking a negative declaration to the effect that there had been no trade mark infringement. That action was unsuccessful.

17.

In the appeal on the merits, BALEMA sought a declaration that it is not obliged to refrain from using the designation ‘Balsamico’ for vinegar-based products produced in Germany. The appeal on the merits was upheld as the court considered that the use of the name ‘Balsamico’ in respect of vinegar did not infringe Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 1151/2012. According to that court, the protection for the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ granted by Regulation No 583/2009 was conferred only on the entire name and not on the non-geographical components of the term as a whole, even if used jointly.

18.

The case was appealed to the referring court.

19.

The referring court considers that the appeal on a point of law will succeed if the names ‘Balsamico’ and ‘Deutscher Balsamico’ used by BALEMA infringe Article 13(1)(a) or (b) of Regulation No 1151/2012. According to that court such a finding would require that the protection of the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ granted by Article 1 of Regulation No 583/2009 also covers the use of the individual non-geographical components of the term as a whole (‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’).

20.

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) notes that it is clear from the second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 and the case-law of the Court that, pursuant to Article 13(1)(a) or (b) of that regulation, a protected geographical indication that consists of several terms can be protected against not only the use of the entire indication, but also against the use of individual terms of that indication. The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 governs the specific case in which a protected geographical indication contains within it the name of a product which is considered to be generic. That provision stipulates that the use of that generic name is not to be considered to be contrary to Article 13(1)(a) or (b) of that regulation. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) also refers to the fact that the Commission regulation registering the name may restrict the scope of the protection of a protected geographical indication that consists of several terms so that it does not cover the use of individual terms of that indication. In that regard, the fact that an applicant may state that it does not seek protection for all elements of a name shows that the protection granted by its registration can be restricted.

21.

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) considers that recitals 3, 5 and 10 of Regulation No 583/2009 militate in favour of a restriction of the scope of protection to the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ as a whole, to the exclusion of individual non-geographical components. It also considers that, contrary to the view taken in the appeal on a point of law, the assumption that protection is granted to the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ as a whole did not give rise to an inconsistency with the registration of the protected designations of origin ‘Aceto balsamico tradizionale di Modena’ and ‘Aceto balsamico tradizionale di Reggio Emilia’ pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 813/2000 of 17 April 2000 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92. ( 7 ) Contrary to Regulation No 583/2009, the references to a restricted scope of protection in Regulation No 813/2000, which may be attributable to the fact that there was no opposition by Member States pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 ( 8 ) (now Articles 51 and 52 of Regulation No 1151/2012) in the preceding registration procedure, does not preclude a restriction of the protective effect of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ as a whole.

22.

In those circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Does the protection of the entire name “Aceto Balsamico di Modena” extend to the use of the individual non-geographical components of the term as a whole (“Aceto”, “Balsamico”, “Aceto Balsamico”)?’

23.

Written observations were submitted by the Consorzio, the Italian, Greek, and Spanish Governments and the Commission. The Consorzio, BALEMA, the German, Greek, Spanish and Italian Governments and the Commission presented oral argument at the hearing on 23 May 2019.

24.

It may be observed at the outset that part of the difficulty in this — and, indeed, other similar — cases stems from the somewhat promiscuous use of the single expression ‘generic terms’ in two different senses. As I have just noted, the expression ‘generic terms’ is defined by Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012 as meaning the names of products ‘which, although relating to the place, region or country where the product was originally produced or marketed, have become the common name of a product in the Union’. But the expression has also been used by courts, judges, lawyers and commentators alike to refer simply to common or usual words which, precisely because of their generic quality, do not qualify for registration as PGIs/PDOs. ( 9 ) As it is necessary to keep these concepts separate, I propose to use the expression ‘generic terms’ in the special sense by which it was defined in Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012, but otherwise simply to use the term ‘common words’ to describe words or phrases which in other contexts could — or, perhaps, even would — be described as generic in character.

25.

Article 13(1)(a) to (d) of Regulation No 1151/2012 sets out a graduated list of prohibited conduct in relation to names registered under that regulation. ( 10 ) Points (a) to (d) of Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 refer to various situations in which the marketing of a product is accompanied by an explicit or implicit reference to a geographic indication or denomination in circumstances liable to mislead the public as to the origin of the product or, at the very least, to set in train in the mind of the public an association of ideas regarding that origin, or to enable the trader to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the geographical indication or denomination concerned. ( 11 )

26.

In the judgment of 7 June 2018, Scotch Whisky Association (C‑44/17, EU:C:2018:415, paragraph 29), the Court held that the word ‘use’ in Article 16(a) of Regulation No 110/2008 in relation to ‘any direct or indirect commercial use in respect of products not covered by the registration’ ( 12 )‘requires, by definition, that the sign at issue make use of the protected geographical indication itself, in the form in which that indication was registered or, at least, in a form with such close links to it, in visual and/or phonetic terms, that the sign at issue clearly cannot be dissociated from it’. At paragraph 44 of that judgment, the Court stated that the notion of ‘evocation’ ( 13 )‘covers a situation in which the term used to designate a product incorporates part of a protected geographical indication, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product in question, the image triggered in his mind is that of the product whose indication is protected’. ( 14 )

27.

Article 13(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1151/2012 provides, however, that, when a name ( 15 ) registered in the register of protected designations of origin (‘PDO’) and protected geographical indications (‘PGI’), contains a generic element, the use of that generic element does not infringe the protection of the aforementioned registered name pursuant to Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of that regulation. It is thus clear from the very wording of Article 13(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1151/2012 itself that a compound name registered in the register of PDOs and PGIs may itself contain generic or otherwise unprotected elements.

28.

Thus, where a PDO or a PGI is made up of several elements/names, one or more of which is the name of a product which is considered generic, the use by a third party of the generic element/name does not, in principle, infringe the protection granted by Article 13(1)(a) and (b) ( 16 ) of Regulation No 1151/2012 ( 17 ) against any direct or indirect commercial use of a registered name and any misuse, imitation or evocation of a registered name respectively. ( 18 ) This point may be illustrated by a very straightforward example. Prosciutto di Parma (Parma ham) has been entered on the PDO register, ( 19 ) but it could not be suggested, for example, that the word ‘prosciutto’/‘ham’ cannot be used by other producers and suppliers.

29.

This important principle was confirmed by the order of 6 October 2015, Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse v Commission (C‑517/14 P, EU:C:2015:700), in which the Court stated that given that the Commission had determined, in Article 1 of 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)] ( 20 ) relating to the registration of the name ‘Edam Holland’, that the name ‘Edam’ constitutes a generic designation, that word could — the registration of the PGI ‘Edam Holland’ notwithstanding — continue to be used within the territory of the European Union, provided that the principles and rules applicable in its legal order were respected. The Court thus found that the General Court had not erred in law in finding, inter alia, that Regulation No 1121/2010 provides that the name ‘Edam’ may continue to be used for the marketing of cheeses. ( 21 )

30.

Given the very broad scope of protection granted by Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1151/2012, ( 22 ) so far as the present case is concerned, it is imperative to ascertain, prior to any determination of infringement of those provisions, whether a compound name registered in the register of PDOs and PGIs contains generic — and thus unprotected — elements.

31.

As I have already indicated, the definition of ‘generic terms’ contained in Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012 is, in my view, very specific and limited in scope. It ‘means the names of products which, although relating to the place, region or country where the product was originally produced or marketed, have become the common name of a product in the Union’. ( 23 ) The definition thus refers to terms which over time have lost their geographical connotation. In its judgment of 2 July 2009, Bavaria and Bavaria Italia (C‑343/07, EU:C:2009:415, paragraph 107), the Court stated that ‘as regards a PGI, a name becomes generic only if the direct link between, on the one hand, the geographical origin of the product and, on the other hand, a specific quality of that product, its reputation or another characteristic of the product, attributable to that origin, has disappeared, and that the name does no more than describe a style or type of product’.

32.

As I have already indicated, part of the difficulty in the present — and, indeed, similar — cases arises from the particular and limited manner in which the term ‘generic’ has been defined by Regulation No 1151/2012. It is nevertheless clear that, in addition to ‘generic terms’ in the strict sense of the definition contained in Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012, the use of common names or usual terms which have no current geographical connotation — and which are often also described as generic terms in a slightly different sense of that term — do not infringe the protection of a registered name provided under Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1151/2012.

33.

In that regard, it must be noted that at paragraph 80 of its judgment of 16 March 1999, Denmark and Others v Commission (C‑289/96, C‑293/96 and C‑299/96, EU:C:1999:141), the Court considered that the terms ‘name that has become generic’ — contained in a provision equivalent to Article 41 of Regulation No 1151/2012 concerning the use of generic terms — is also applicable to names which have always been generic.

34.

Moreover, in its judgment of 9 June 1998, Chiciak and Fol (C‑129/97 and C‑130/97, EU:C:1998:274, paragraph 37), the Court found that the protection afforded by a provision equivalent to Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1151/2012 covers not only the compound designation as a whole, but also each of its constituent parts, provided they are not generic or common terms. ( 24 )

35.

The German, Greek, and Spanish Governments and the Commission consider that ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ and ‘Aceto Balsamico’ are generic and/or common terms. For example, it was argued before this Court that the term ‘Balsamico’ is derived from the Latin word ‘balsamun’ or the Greek word ‘βάλσαμον’, ( 25 ) is used in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese and refers, inter alia, to a calming preparation used for medicinal purposes.

36.

In assessing whether a term is generic in the special context of the definition contained in Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012, or whether it is a common term (and thus generic in the broader sense I have just described), what is decisive, in my view, is not necessarily whether a term has a particular meaning in a given language ( 26 ) but rather whether it lacks a current geographical connotation.

37.

In that regard, it must be noted that despite the fact that the word ‘feta’ means ‘slice’ in Italian ( 27 ) and would thus at least prima facie appear to be a common term, the Court found in its judgment of 25 October 2005, Germany and Denmark v Commission (C‑465/02 and C‑466/02, EU:C:2005:636, paragraphs 88 and 94) that the name ‘feta’ as a PDO for cheese was not generic. ( 28 ) The Court found that the Commission was entitled to conclude that ‘feta’ was a designation of origin in respect of cheese produced in Greece. That decision must, however, be understood by reference to the specific and particular findings of fact made in that case.

38.

In that case, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Denmark applied for annulment of 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’ ( 29 ) claiming that it was inter alia, generic, in the sense of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 i.e., the predecessor of the present Article 3(6) and Article 41(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012. In assessing whether the term ‘feta’ was generic, the Court took into account the places of production of the product concerned both inside and outside the Member State which obtained the registration of the name at issue, the consumption of that product and how it is perceived by consumers inside and outside that Member State, the existence of national legislation specifically relating to that product, and the way in which the name has been used in Community law. ( 30 )

39.

As the Court observed at paragraphs 86 to 90 of its judgment:

40.

In effect, therefore, that case turned on the fact that, as found by the Court, for the vast majority of European consumers, the word ‘feta’ was indelibly associated with the particular cheese produced in Greece. Indeed, save for Italian speakers, the term had no other meaning for those consumers. It followed, accordingly, that the Commission was entitled to conclude that the word ‘feta’ was not a generic term for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 as it had a current geographical connotation.

41.

If the matter were one of purely personal judgment, I think that I would find myself arriving at the opposite conclusion so far as the present case is concerned. ‘Aceto’ is obviously a common Italian word and while the word ‘balsamico’ is certainly closely associated in the minds of many consumers with the product produced by the Consorzio, the basic root word(s) ‘balsam’ and ‘balm’ are, in my view, just too common and well established words to accommodate themselves individually for protection as a PGI. Nor, in my view, can it be said that these words have a current geographical connotation so that, on this basis, these words represent ‘generic terms’ for the purposes of Article 3(6) of Regulation 1151/2012.

42.

The test, nevertheless, is ultimately the manner in which these words would be perceived by the ‘average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’. ( 32 ) This would be a matter ultimately for the national court to verify and assess, assisted perhaps by appropriate consumer surveys and the like. ( 33 )

43.

Absent such findings by the national court, in these circumstances, I believe that the Court is simply not in a position itself to make a judgement as to whether the words ‘aceto’ and ‘balsamico’ are common words in the sense I have described or whether the words are also ‘generic terms’ in the special sense of Article 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012. Despite this reservation, I nonetheless consider that this Court can give a definitive ruling on this matter if the matter is approached from the slightly different standpoint of an analysis of the provisions of Regulation No 583/2009. In this respect, I have found its recitals to be particularly instructive. It is to this issue to which I now propose to turn.

44.

In accordance with Article 1 of and Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009, the compound name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ was entered in the register. No limitation or qualification in respect of the scope of protection of that compound name is contained in Article 1 of or Annex I to that regulation.

45.

It is clear however from recitals 2, 3, 5 and 7 of Regulation No 583/2009 that Germany, Greece ( 34 ) and France submitted objections to the registration of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’. It would appear in particular that Germany and Greece considered that the terms inter alia ‘Aceto balsamico’ were generic in character. (It is to be inferred from the context that the phrase ‘generic terms’ was used synonymously in the sense of common or usual word.)

46.

Moreover, recital 10 of Regulation No 583/2009 states, inter alia, that ‘protection is granted to the term “Aceto Balsamico di Modena”as a whole. Individual non-geographical components of that term may be used, even jointly and also in translation, throughout the Community, provided the principles and rules applicable in the Community’s legal order are respected.’ ( 35 )

47.

Despite the contents of the recitals in question and the obvious controversy that surrounded the registration of the PGI ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’, it must be recalled that the Commission did not specifically determine in Article 1 of or Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009 whether any of the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ or ‘Aceto Balsamico’ were generic designations (either in the special sense of the regulation or in the alternative and wider sense of that term by reason of the fact that they were simply common words) or non-geographical components, and could thus, notwithstanding the registration of the PGI at issue, continue to be used within the territory of the European Union in accordance with Article 13(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation No 1151/2012.

48.

This approach contrasts with the situation which prevailed in relation for example to Regulation No 1121/2010 in which not only recital 8 of the regulation in question but also its operative part clearly indicated that the name ‘Edam’ was generic. ( 36 )

49.

It must however be noted that in its judgment of 9 June 1998, Chiciak and Fol (C‑129/97 and C‑130/97, EU:C:1998:274, paragraph 39), the Court held as regards the use of compound terms in a designation of origin, ( 37 ) that the fact that there was no footnote in the annex to the regulation registering the designation in question specifying that registration was not sought for one of the parts of that designation ( 38 ) did not necessarily mean that each of its parts was protected. ( 39 ) By contrast in its judgment of 26 February 2008, Commission v Germany (C‑132/05, EU:C:2008:117, paragraph 31), the Court rejected the argument that a PDO enjoys protection only in the exact form in which it is registered. ( 40 )

50.

In summary, no conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Article 1 of and Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009 do not specifically indicate whether any of the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ or ‘Aceto Balsamico’ are generic designations (whether in the special sense of Article 3(6) of the regulation or by reason of the fact that they are common words) or non-geographical components.

51.

Given that it is unclear from the wording Article 1 of and Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009, interpreted in the light of the above case-law, whether any of the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ or ‘Aceto Balsamico’ are generic designations (and, again, whether in the special sense of Article 3(6) of the regulation or by reason of the fact that they are common words) or non-geographical components, I consider that those provisions must be interpreted in the light of the recitals of that regulation. It is settled case-law that the operative part of a European Union act is indissociably linked to the statement of reasons for it, so that, when it has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption. ( 41 )

52.

In that regard, recitals 2 to 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Regulation No 583/2009 clearly and unequivocally indicate that the European legislature (in this instance, the Commission) considered, on the basis of express objections raised by Germany, Greece and France that the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’ and ‘Balsamico’ were generic designations or non-geographical components and that protection was only to be afforded to the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ rather than individual non-geographical components thereof.

53.

In recital 8 of Regulation No 583/2009, the reputation of ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ is stressed and in recital 10 it is indicated that despite the objections raised by Germany, Greece and France to the registration of the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’ and ‘Balsamico’, no objection was raised in relation to the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’. As previously indicated, recital 10 states that ‘protection is granted to the term “Aceto Balsamico di Modena”as a whole’ ( 42 ) and that individual non-geographical components of that term may, in principle, be used.

54.

I consider, accordingly, that it is clear in particular from recital 10 of Regulation No 583/2009 that the European legislature considered that terms ‘Aceto’, ‘Aceto Balsamico’ and ‘Balsamico’ are generic (in both senses of that term) or non-geographical components which are unprotected and which could continue to be used provided that the principles and rules applicable in the European Union’s legal order are respected.

55.

An interpretation of Regulation No 583/2009 which would limit the scope of protection afforded by it to the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ rather than extending protection to its individual non-geographical components is clearly supported by the judgments of the Court of 9 December 1981, Commission v Italy (193/80, EU:C:1981:298), and of 15 October 1985, Commission v Italy (281/83, EU:C:1985:407). In those cases, the Court noted that the term ‘Aceto’ is the Italian word for vinegar and held that it is a generic term. As these were free movement of goods cases, the Court was obviously using the words ‘generic term’ in the sense of saying that the word ‘aceto’ was simply a common Italian word for vinegar.

56.

Despite the absence of any indication in Article 1 of or Annex I to Regulation No 583/2009 specifically limiting the protection granted to the term ‘Aceto’, that common term cannot, in the light of the above case-law, be protected by that regulation. ( 43 )

57.

Moreover, in my view, the registration of the name ‘Aceto balsamico tradizionale di Modena (PDO)’ pursuant to Regulation No 813/2000, which is all but identical to the PGI ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’, save for the additional word ‘tradizionale’ ( 44 ) and the capitalisation of the ‘b’ in ‘balsamico’ clearly argues, in my view, in favour of a finding that only the indication ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ as a whole is protected and that the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘balsamico’ and ‘Aceto balsamico’ are simply common words. Such an approach is unequivocally supported by recitals 8 and 9 of Regulation No 583/2009.

58.

I also consider that the registration of the designation ‘Aceto balsamico tradizionale di Reggio Emilia (PDO)’ pursuant to Regulation No 813/2000 also tends to indicate that the terms ‘Aceto’, ‘balsamico’ and ‘Aceto balsamico’ are common words.

59.

In contrast, given the obvious geographic connotation attached to the word ‘Modena’, ( 45 ) I consider that the use of that term or the terms ‘di Modena’ in relation to vinegar or indeed other condiments could evoke, pursuant to Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation No 1151/2012, not only ‘Aceto balsamico di Modena’ but also ‘Aceto balsamico tradizionale di Modena’.

60.

I therefore consider that the protection of the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ under Regulation No 583/2009 does not extend to the use of the individual common words or non-geographical components, namely, ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ and ‘Aceto Balsamico’. ( 46 ) Those individual common words or non-geographical components may be used provided that the principles and rules applicable in the European Union order are respected.

61.

In view of all the foregoing considerations, I consider that the Court should answer the question referred by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) as follows:

The protection of the entire name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ under Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 does not extend to the use of the individual common words or non-geographical components, namely, ‘Aceto’, ‘Balsamico’ and ‘Aceto Balsamico’.