# C_2009267EN.01001102.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Modena (Italy)) — Alberto Severi, in his own name, and as legal representative of Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA v Regione Emilia-Romagna

(Case C-446/07) (1)

1

(Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer - Labelling likely to mislead the purchaser as to the origin or provenance of the foodstuff - Generic names within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 - Effect)

2009/C 267/19

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Modena

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alberto Severi, in his own name, and as legal representative of Cavazzuti e figli SpA, now known as Grandi Salumifici Italiani SpA

Applicant:

Defendant: Regione Emilia-Romagna

Defendant:

Intervening party: Associazione fra Produttori per la Tutela del ‘Salame Felino’

Intervening party:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale civile di Modena — Interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06 — Name of a food product which is evocative of a place not registered as a PDO or PGI within the meaning of that regulation — Whether it is possible for producers who have used that name in good faith and uninterruptedly before the entry into force of the regulation to use it in the common market — ‘Salame Felino’

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2796/2000 of 20 December 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the designation of a foodstuff containing geographical references, which has been the subject of an application for registration as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, cannot be regarded as generic pending the possible forwarding of the application for registration to the Commission of the European Communities by the national authorities. A designation cannot be presumed to be generic, within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, for as long as the Commission has not taken a decision on the application for registration of the designation, as the case may be, by rejecting it on the specific ground that that designation has become generic. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2796/2000 of 20 December 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that the designation of a foodstuff containing geographical references, which has been the subject of an application for registration as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, cannot be regarded as generic pending the possible forwarding of the application for registration to the Commission of the European Communities by the national authorities. A designation cannot be presumed to be generic, within the meaning of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, for as long as the Commission has not taken a decision on the application for registration of the designation, as the case may be, by rejecting it on the specific ground that that designation has become generic.

| 2. | Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, read with Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the designation of a foodstuff containing geographical references, which is not registered as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, may legitimately be used, on condition that the labelling of the product so named does not mislead the average, reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect consumer. For the purpose of assessing whether that is the case, national courts may have regard to the length of time during which the name has been used. By contrast, any good faith on the part of the manufacturer or retailer is irrelevant in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation No 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No 2796/2000, read with Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, must be interpreted as meaning that the designation of a foodstuff containing geographical references, which is not registered as a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical indication, may legitimately be used, on condition that the labelling of the product so named does not mislead the average, reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect consumer. For the purpose of assessing whether that is the case, national courts may have regard to the length of time during which the name has been used. By contrast, any good faith on the part of the manufacturer or retailer is irrelevant in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.

1

---