Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:1999:141
Date: 1999-03-16
Language of the case: Danish;German;French
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Foodstuffs;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Consumer protection
Concepts: Protected names
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany;Denmark;France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Agriculture — Standard laws — Protection of geographical indications and designations of 
origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs — Registration under Regulation No 2081/92 — 
Non-registrable names — Names that have become generic — Meaning — Scope 
(Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 3(1) and (3)) 
I-1541 
SUMMARY —JOINED CASES C-289/96, C-293/96 AND C-299/96 
2. Agriculture — Standard laws — Protection of geographical indications and designations of 
ońgin of agricultural products and foodstuffs — ReguUtion No 2081/92 — Simplified proce­
dure — Exclusion of generic names — Criteria of assessment — Regulation registering the 
name 'Feta' as a designation of origin — Whether account taken of the use of the same name 
in Member States other than the State seeking registration — No account taken — Invalid 
(Council ReguUtion No 2081/92, Arts 3(1), 7 and 17(2); Commission Regulation No 1107/96) 
1. It is clear from Article 3(3) of Regulation 
N o 2081/92 on the protection of geo­
graphical indications and designations of 
origin for agricultural products and food­
stuffs, which requires the Council to draw 
up an indicative, non-exhaustive list of the 
names of agricultural products which are 
regarded under the terms of Article 3(1) as 
being generic and therefore not to be reg­
istered under that regulation, that the defi­
nition given therein of the expression 'name 
that has become generic' is also applicable 
to names which have always been generic. 
2. Even though Article 17(2) of Regulation 
N o 2081/92 provides that Article 7 thereof, 
which establishes a procedure for chal­
lenging registrations of geographical indi­
cations and designations of origin, is not 
applicable in the simplified registration 
procedure provided for in Article 17 for 
the registration of names already existing 
at the date of entry into force of that regu­
lation, a registration under that procedure 
" presupposes, as does the normal proce­
dure, that the names conform with the 
substantive requirements of that regula­
tion. Therefore, the finding that Article 
7(4) of Regulation N o 2081/92 makes the 
existence of products which are legally on 
the market a ground for the admissibility 
of a statement of objection distinct from 
the ground that the name whose registra­
tion is applied for is generic does not nec­
essarily mean that the first of those two 
circumstances should not be taken into 
account in the examination of the factors 
which Article 3(1) of that regulation 
requires to be taken into account in order 
to determine whether or not a name has 
become generic, but on the contrary it 
highlights the fact that, in the context of 
procedures for registration of a name, 
account must be taken of the existence of 
products which are lawfully on the market 
and have therefore been legally marketed 
under that name in Member States other 
than the State of origin seeking registra­
tion. 
When registering the name 'Feta', the Com­
mission took no account whatsoever of 
I - 1542 
DENMARK AND OTHERS v COMMISSION 
the fact that that name had been used for 
a considerable time in certain Member 
States other than the Hellenic Republic. It 
thus did not take due account of all the 
factors which Article 3(1) of Regulation 
No 2081/92 required it to take into con­
sideration. Accordingly, Regulation No 
1107/96 must be annulled to the extent to 
which it registered 'Feta' as a protected 
designation of origin. 
I - 1543