LG Mannheim: there is no German balsamico

Katfriend Valentina Torelli pointed us to an interesting decision from Germany. In a case of a declaratory action of non-infringement brought by the German company Balema against the Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena, an association of producers of the balsamic vinegar protected by the protected geographic indication (PGI) "Aceto Balsamico di Modena", the Landgericht Mannheim ruled in a decision of 15 September 2015 that balsamic vinegar sold as "Balsamico" must comply with the regulations for the PGI "Aceto Balsamico di Modena".

Balema has been, according to its own undisputed account, producing balsamic vinegar and selling it under the designations "german balsamico" and "aceto balsamico" for over 25 years. It contends that "balsamico" is a generic term for a type of vinegar. It points out that Recital (10) of Regulation EC 583/2009 explicitly states that only the designation "Aceto Balsamico di Modena" is protected, and not the constituent terms "aceto" and "balsamico". In fact, Recital (10) states:
It appears that Germany and Greece did not refer to the entire name, i.e. ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ in their objections regarding the generic nature of the name proposed for registration, but only to some elements of it, namely the words ‘aceto’, ‘balsamico’ and ‘aceto balsamico’, or to translations thereof. However, 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.

The defendant argued that "aceto balsamico" and "balsamico" were used as abbreviations for "Aceto Balsamico di Modena", and their use had to comply with the regulation for the PGI "Aceto Balsamico di Modena".

In this Kat's view, given Recital (10) Balema could be forgiven for thinking that "balsamico" is a generic term, but the Landgericht Mannheim sided with the Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena. Recital (10) only meant that the  designation "Aceto Balsamico di Modena" in its entirety was not generic and could be registered as a PGI. It did not say anything about the protection of individual elements of the PGI, and did not indicate that "aceto balsamico" was a generic term. Denying protection for elements of the PGI "Aceto Balsamico di Modena" would contradict art. 13(1) Regulation EC 1151/2012 and the CJEU's case law interpreting said article.

The use of "balsamico" by Balema was an evocation of the PGI "Aceto Balsamico di Modena" in the sense of art. 13(1)(b) Regulation EC 1151/2012. "Evocation" was to be interpreted widely and did not require a likelihood of confusion (with references to the CJEU case law). "Balsamico" was commonly associated with the "original" product complying with the PGI regulation.

The burden of proof that "[aceto] balsamico" was a generic term in the sense of art. 3(6) Regulation EC 1151/2012 lies with Balema. To demonstrate that a term was generic it is insufficient to show that it is understood as a generic term in a specific member state, i.e. Germany. Relevant is the perception of the relevant consumers in the entire territory, or at least a substantial part, of the EU (with reference to T-291/03 - GRANA BIRAGHI). Balema had not even alleged and much less proven such an understanding in (most of) the EU.

I have an inkling that this decision will be appealed, but no further information on the proceedings. If any reader has any information, feel free to post it in the comments.
LG Mannheim: there is no German balsamico LG Mannheim: there is no German balsamico Reviewed by Mark Schweizer on Monday, December 07, 2015 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.