# C_2008051EN.01003101.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/31

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Modena (Italy) lodged on 1 October 2007 — Alberto Severi, Cavazzuti e figli v Regione Emilia-Romagna

(Case C-446/07)

(2008/C 51/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Modena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alberto Severi, Cavazzuti e figli

Applicants:

Defendant: Regione Emilia-Romagna

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06) (1) in relation to Article 2 of Legislative Decree 109/92 (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC) (2) be interpreted as meaning that the name of a food product containing geographical references, for which, at national level, the submission of an application to the Commission for registration as a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) within the meaning of those regulations has been ‘rejected’ or blocked, must be considered generic at least throughout the period for which such ‘rejection’ or blocking remains effective? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06) (1) in relation to Article 2 of Legislative Decree 109/92 (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC) (2) be interpreted as meaning that the name of a food product containing geographical references, for which, at national level, the submission of an application to the Commission for registration as a protected designation of origin (PDO) or a protected geographical indication (PGI) within the meaning of those regulations has been ‘rejected’ or blocked, must be considered generic at least throughout the period for which such ‘rejection’ or blocking remains effective?

1

2

| 2. | Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06) in relation to Article 2 of Legislative Decree 109/92 (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC) be interpreted as meaning that the name of a food product which is evocative of a place not registered as a PDO or PGI within the meaning of those regulations may be legitimately used in the European market by producers who have used it in good faith and uninterruptedly for a considerable period before the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (now Regulation (EC) No 510/06) and in the period following the entry into force of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (now Articles 3(1) and 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/06) in relation to Article 2 of Legislative Decree 109/92 (Article 2 of Directive 2000/13/EC) be interpreted as meaning that the name of a food product which is evocative of a place not registered as a PDO or PGI within the meaning of those regulations may be legitimately used in the European market by producers who have used it in good faith and uninterruptedly for a considerable period before the entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (now Regulation (EC) No 510/06) and in the period following the entry into force of that provision?

| 3. | Must Article 15(2) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (3) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a collective mark for a food product containing a geographical reference is not allowed to prevent producers of a product having the same characteristics from using to describe it a name similar to that contained in the collective mark, where those producers have used that name in good faith and uninterruptedly over a period of time considerably pre-dating the registration of that collective mark? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 15(2) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (3) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a collective mark for a food product containing a geographical reference is not allowed to prevent producers of a product having the same characteristics from using to describe it a name similar to that contained in the collective mark, where those producers have used that name in good faith and uninterruptedly over a period of time considerably pre-dating the registration of that collective mark?

3

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12.

1

(2)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

2

(3)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

3

---