The matter at hand
Aldi, a company distributing foodstuffs, sells a sorbet (manufactured by Galana) under the name ‘Champagner Sorbet’, containing 12 % champagne as an ingredient. The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the French association charged with the protection of the designation of origin (‘PDO’) ‘Champagne’, brought proceedings against Aldi, claiming (inter alia) that the use of the PDO ‘Champagne’ by Aldi exploits the reputation thereof and/or constitutes a misuse, imitation or evocation within the meaning of Article 118(m) of the Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products and Article 103 of Regulation No 1308/2013.
The Landgericht München (Regional Court of Munich, Germany) ruled in favor of the CIVC, but this decision was reversed in appeal. The CIVC then brought the case before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) which referred several questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling, asking, in essence, whether it is permitted to use the PDO ‘Champagne’ for a product that is not Champagne as such (i.e. the sparkling wine), but contains Champagne as an ingredient.
The judgment of the ECJ
The ECJ first of all rules that considering the broad scope of protection afforded to PDOs, Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of the Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are also applicable to the commercial use of a PDO as part of the name of a foodstuff containing an ingredient which corresponds to the product specifications of the PDO (paragraphs 30 – 36).
As to whether the use of the PDO ‘Champagne’ for a product containing Champagne as an ingredient exploits the reputation of the PDO, the ECJ rules that although such use “is likely to extend to that product the reputation of the PDO ‘Champagne’, which conveys an image of luxury and prestige, and therefore to take advantage of that reputation” (paragraph 41), such use cannot be considered to take unfair advantage thereof if that ingredient confers on that foodstuff one of its essential characteristics (paragraph 50). Where the use of the PDO intends to convey the taste of the foodstuff, this is the case if that foodstuff has “a taste attributable primarily to the presence of champagne in the composition of the foodstuff” (paragraph 53). The ECJ adds that if this requirement is not met, this does not only mean that the use of the PDO in the name of the foodstuff exploits the reputation of the PDO, but also that the name of the foodstuff constitutes a false or misleading indication within the meaning of Article 118m(2)(c) of the Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (paragraph 63).
The ECJ further rules that the use of a PDO for a foodstuff in order “to claim openly a gustatory quality connected with it” does not amount to misuse, imitation or evocation, if the foodstuff in fact contains an ingredient that corresponds to the product specifications for the relevant PDO (paragraph 57 - 59).