Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1 Agriculture - Standard laws - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs - Registration under Regulation No 2081/92 - Non-registrable names - Names that have become generic - Meaning - Scope

(Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 3(1) and (3))

2 Agriculture - Standard laws - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation No 2081/92 - Simplified procedure - Exclusion of generic names - Criteria of assessment - Regulation registering the name `Feta' as a designation of origin - Whether account taken of the use of the same name in Member States other than the State seeking registration - No account taken - Invalid

(Council Regulation No 2081/92, Arts 3(1), 7 and 17(2); Commission Regulation No 1107/96)

Summary

1 It is clear from Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which requires the Council to draw up an indicative, non-exhaustive list of the names of agricultural products which are regarded under the terms of Article 3(1) as being generic and therefore not to be registered under that regulation, that the definition given therein of the expression `name that has become generic' is also applicable to names which have always been generic.

2 Even though Article 17(2) of Regulation No 2081/92 provides that Article 7 thereof, which establishes a procedure for challenging registrations of geographical indications and designations of origin, is not applicable in the simplified registration procedure provided for in Article 17 for the registration of names already existing at the date of entry into force of that regulation, a registration under that procedure presupposes, as does the normal procedure, that the names conform with the substantive requirements of that regulation. Therefore, the finding that Article 7(4) of Regulation No 2081/92 makes the existence of products which are legally on the market a ground for the admissibility of a statement of objection distinct from the ground that the name whose registration is applied for is generic does not necessarily mean that the first of those two circumstances should not be taken into account in the examination of the factors which Article 3(1) of that regulation requires to be taken into account in order to determine whether or not a name has become generic, but on the contrary it highlights the fact that, in the context of procedures for registration of a name, account must be taken of the existence of products which are lawfully on the market and have therefore been legally marketed under that name in Member States other than the State of origin seeking registration.

When registering the name `Feta', the Commission took no account whatsoever of the fact that that name had been used for a considerable time in certain Member States other than the Hellenic Republic. It thus did not take due account of all the factors which Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 required it to take into consideration. Accordingly, Regulation No 1107/96 must be annulled to the extent to which it registered `Feta' as a protected designation of origin.