This long saga

HvJ EG, 5 februari 2009, conclusie A-G Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in zaak C-478/07, BudÄjovický Budvar National Corporation tegen Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (prejudiciële vragen Handelsgericht Wien, Oostenrijk, Nederlandse vertaling nog niet beschikbaar).

Geografische aanduidingen en oorsprongsbenamingen. Interpretatie van HvJ EG 18 november 2003, C-216/01inzake de vereisten voor de bescherming van een benaming als geografische aanduiding (‘Bud’), wanneer die in het land van herkomst noch de naam van een plaats, noch van een streek is. Gevolgen van de toetreding van Tsjechië tot de EU.

“139. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest to the Court of Justice that it should respond as follows to the questions raised for a preliminary ruling by the Handelsgericht Wien:

(1) The requirements defined by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 BudÄjovický Budvar for the protection as a geographical indication of a designation which in the country of origin is the name neither of a place nor of a region to be compatible with Article 28 EC:

(1.1) mean that the name must be sufficiently clear to call to mind a product and its origin;

(1.2) are not three different requirements which must be satisfied separately;

(1.3) do not require a consumer survey or define the result which has to be obtained in order to justify protection;

(1.4) do not mean that, in practice, the name must be used in the country of origin as a geographical indication by more than one undertaking and says nothing about its use as a trade mark by a single undertaking.

(2) When a designation has not been notified to the Commission under 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, national protection in force or protection bilaterally extended to another Member State becomes invalid if the designation is a qualified geographical indication under the law of the State of origin, having regard to the fact that Regulation No 510/2006 is exclusive as regards the indications within its scope of application.

(3) The fact that the Treaty of Accession between the Member States of the European Union and a new Member State introduces protection for various qualified geographical indications for a foodstuff under Regulation No 510/2006 does not preclude maintenance of existing national protection or protection bilaterally extended to another Member State for a different name for the same product, unless that name is an abbreviation or a part of any of the geographical indications protected at Community level for the same product. Regulation No 510/2006 does not have exclusive effect to that extent, without prejudice to the response to the second question referred.

Lees de conclusie hier.