Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:84
Date: 2022-02-09
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Foodstuffs;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
19 January 2021  
Referring court:  
Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
29 December 2020 
Appellant in cassation:  
‘Konservinvest’ OOD 
Respondent in cassation:  
‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Dispute about whether it is permissible for a geographical indication of an 
agricultural product or foodstuff to be registered solely under the national 
legislation of a Member State and to enjoy protection only under national civil 
law, irrespective of the protection regime established at Union level by Regulation 
No 1151/2012. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products 
and foodstuffs on the basis of point (b) of the first paragraph and the third 
paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-35/21 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Does Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products 
and foodstuffs allow, outside the cases of transitional protection provided for in 
that provision, a national system for the registration and protection of 
geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs covered by that 
regulation, and does that provision leave Member States free to apply at national 
level other rules that are applicable in parallel (similar to the parallel system for 
trade marks) in order to settle legal disputes concerning infringements of the right 
to such a geographical indication between local traders who produce and market 
agricultural products and foodstuffs covered by Regulation No 1151/2012 within 
the Member State in which the geographical indication was registered? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 
(OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 1151/2012’), Articles 2, 5 and 9 
Case-law relied on 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2009, Budějovický Budvar (С-
478/07, EU:C:2009:521, paragraphs 114 to 117) 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 November 2000, Warsteiner Brauerei (С-
312/98, EU:C:2000:599, paragraph 50) 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 May 1997, Jacques Pistre and Others 
(Joined Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94, C-324/94, EU:C:1997:229, 
operative part 1) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zakon za markite i geografskite oznachenia (Law on trade marks and 
geographical designations, published in State Gazette (‘DV’) No 81 of 
14 September 1999, repealed; ‘the ZMGO [repealed]’), Articles 51, 53, 57а and 
76 
Prehodni i zaklyuchitelni razporedbi kam Zakona za izmenenie i dopalnenie na 
zakona za markite i geografskite oznachenia (Transitional and final provisions of 
the Law amending and supplementing the Law on trade marks and geographical 
designations, published in DV No 61 of 2018; ‘the PZR ZID ZMGO’), 
Paragraph 8 
KONSERVINVEST 
 
3 
Zakon za prilagane na Obshtata organizatsia na pazarite na zemedelski produkti 
na Evropeiskia sayuz (Law on the implementation of the common organisation of 
the market in agricultural products of the European Union, published in DV No 96 
of 28 November 2006; ‘the ZPOOPZPES’), Articles 1, 24 and 25 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By decision of the President of the Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria of 
3 July 2013, ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ AD was registered under the ZMGO (repealed) 
as a user of a geographical designation, namely the geographical indication 
‘Lyutenitsa Parvomai’, for the product ‘Lyutenitsa’. According to a certificate of 
registered users of a registered geographical indication issued by the national 
patent office, ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD is the only registered user of that 
geographical indication. 
2 ‘Konservinvest’ OOD has registered its own national trade marks, namely the 
composite trade mark ‘K Konservinvest Parvomayska lyutenitsa’ (registered with 
the national patent office on 12 February 1999 for goods in Class 29 – Lyutenitsa) 
and the composite trade mark ‘Parvomayska lyutenitsa Rachenitsa’ (applied for on 
15 May 2003 and registered on 3 May 2005). In both trade marks, the elements 
‘parvomayska lyutenitsa, all inscriptions in small print’ are not eligible for 
protection. 
3 Following an opposition by ‘Konservinvest’ OOD, administrative proceedings 
were conducted concerning the annulment of the decision (of 3 July 2013) on the 
registration of the geographical indication ‘Lyutenitsa Parvomay’. The opponent 
stated that the President of the Bulgarian Patent Office is not competent to register 
a geographical indication for an agricultural product or foodstuff falling within the 
scope of Regulation No 1151/2012. According to that regulation, registration of a 
geographical indication for such agricultural products is permitted only at 
European Union level in accordance with the procedure laid down in the 
regulation, and not in accordance with national law. 
4 In those proceedings, the patent office and ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD contested 
the application, on the ground that the decision on the registration of the 
geographical indication ‘Lyutenitsa Parvomay’ constitutes a valid administrative 
act and that the Bulgarian Patent Office has the power to register a geographical 
indication for an agricultural product or foodstuff in accordance with national law. 
5 By judgment of 12 July 2017, the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme 
Administrative Court, Bulgaria) dismissed the application of ‘Konservinvest’ 
OOD for annulment of the decision on the registration of the applicant’s 
geographical indication on the ground that it is precisely the President of the 
Bulgarian Patent Office who is competent to register a geographical designation at 
national level. The Supreme Administrative Court also stated that Regulation 
No 1151/12 is not applicable to the dispute, as the parties have not sought the 
protection afforded by it. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-35/21 
 
4  
6 Subsequently, ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD brought an action against 
‘Konservinvest’ OOD before the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, 
Bulgaria), by which it seeks judicial protection under civil law for the 
geographical indication in question under the national legal system. In particular, 
‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD requested that the court: (i) find and declare that the 
defendant infringed the applicant’s rights to the registered geographical indication 
‘Lyutenitsa Parvomay’ via its commercial use of the signs ‘Parvomayska 
Lyutenitsa’, ‘Domashna edrosmlyana’ and ‘Parvomayska lyutenitsa Rachenitsa’ 
to designate the product ‘Lyutenitsa’, which is identical to the product for which 
the geographical indication is registered; (ii) order the defendant to cease the 
infringement; (iii) order the seizure and destruction of the product which is the 
subject of the infringement, the costs of which are to be borne by the defendant; 
(iv) award the applicant compensation for the material damage suffered and the 
loss of income for the period from 1 November 2013 to 30 September 2014; (v) 
have the operative part of the judgment published in two daily newspapers and 
announced during the broadcasting time of a television station with national 
coverage, at the defendant’s expense. 
7 The actions were dismissed by the court of first instance. On 28 February 2019, 
the judgment of that court was set aside by the appellate court (Sofiyski apelativen 
sad; Court of Appeal, Sofia, Bulgaria), which granted, in their entirety, the forms 
of order sought. 
8 ‘Konservinvest’ OOD contested the judgment of the appellate court before the 
Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria; ‘the VKS’), 
citing the inadmissibility of that judgment. By order of 14 April 2020, the VKS 
granted leave for the appeal in cassation with a view to reviewing the 
admissibility of the judgment of the appellate court. Furthermore, the VKS 
considers the form of order sought in the appeal in cassation, requesting a 
preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the 
interpretation of Regulation No 1151/2012, to be well founded and asks the 
question for a preliminary ruling already set out above. The VKS takes the view 
that the answer to the question referred is material to the decision on the 
admissibility of the actions. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 In the proceedings at first instance before the Sofia City Court, the applicant 
‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD stated that it is the sole user of the geographical 
designation registered by it, the geographical indication ‘Lyutenitsa Parvomay’. 
Since the defendant is not registered as a user of that geographical indication, 
submits the applicant, it has infringed the provisions of the ZMGO (repealed) by 
designating the products that it produces (‘Parvomayska lyutenitsa’, ‘Domashna 
edrosmlyana’, ‘Parvomayska lyutenitsa’ and ‘Parvomayska lyutenitsa 
Rachenitsa’) as ‘Parvomayska lyutenitsa’. According to the applicant, the 
defendant unlawfully uses the geographical indication registered for the applicant 
KONSERVINVEST 
 
5 
and thereby misleads consumers as to the true origin of the product. The actions 
are admissible and well founded, as the ZMGO (repealed), Regulation 
No 1151/2012 and the ZPOOPZPES regulate different relationships which are 
neither mutually exclusive nor in competition with each other, with the result that 
those legal acts ensure parallel protection of different rights. 
10 The defendant ‘Konservinvest’ OOD opposes the claims on the ground that it has 
not committed an infringement, as it has exercised its right to label its products 
with the trade marks registered by it. Furthermore, submits the defendant, the 
geographical indication cannot be protected in accordance with the procedure and 
modalities invoked by the applicant, since Article 14 of Regulation No 1151/2012 
is directly applicable by virtue of the earlier registration of its trade marks. The 
defendant contends that the geographical indication was registered in breach of 
the legal requirements, since the registration of agricultural products and 
foodstuffs, which include Lyutenitsa, is directly governed by Regulation 
No 1151/2012, and precludes national schemes for registration and, accordingly, 
for the protection of geographical indications for those products. 
11 The Sofia City Court dismissed the applications as unfounded. That court of first 
instance found that the ZMGO established a general scheme for geographical 
indications. According to that court, this particular case concerns a specific 
product (Lyutenitsa) to which Regulation No 1151/2012 is directly applicable. 
The regulation requires that geographical designations for agricultural products 
and foodstuffs (including Lyutenitsa) be registered with the European 
Commission; legal protection in the Member States (including in the Republic of 
Bulgaria) is granted only after entry in the European register of agricultural 
products and foodstuffs with protected geographical indications. This task of 
registration is assumed ex officio by the Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria. 
The court of first instance stated that, in accordance with Article 24(1) of the 
ZPOOPZPES, legal protection for agricultural products and foodstuffs within the 
scope of Regulation No 1151/2012 is granted by means of entry in the European 
register of foodstuffs registered as a traditional speciality guaranteed. In addition, 
Article 25(1)(1) of that law prohibits the use of a sign, designation or name as a 
geographical indication for an agricultural product or foodstuff which is not 
entered in the European Register. The actions were dismissed owing to the lack of 
substantive standing to bring proceedings, derived from the improper registration 
of the geographical indication. 
12 The Court of Appeal, Sofia set aside the judgment of the Sofia City Court and 
granted the forms of order sought. To that end, the appellate court held that the 
actions are admissible. It was assumed, in essence, that the applicant’s 
geographical indication had been validly registered and that the ZMGO (repealed) 
(Articles 75-77) governed the protection under civil law of geographical 
indications registered under the national procedure, disagreeing with the 
assessment of the court of first instance that Regulation No 1151/2012 precludes 
national protection. The appellate court found the actions to be well founded, as 
the defendant had not been registered as a user of the geographical indication at 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-35/21 
 
6  
the Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria, despite the fact that this was 
procedurally possible; accordingly, there is an infringement of the applicant’s 
right to the registered geographical indication. The appellate court did not share 
the view that Regulation No 1151/2012 precludes national protection. It did share 
the view that the actions are admissible and well founded, as the ZMGO 
(repealed), Regulation No 1151/2012 and the ZPOOPZPES regulate different 
relationships which are neither mutually exclusive nor in competition with each 
other, with the result that those legal acts ensure parallel protection of different 
rights. 
13 By its appeal in cassation, the appellant in cassation (‘Konservinvest’ OOD) 
challenges the inadmissibility of the actions that results from Paragraph 8 of the 
PZR ZID ZMGO (DV No 61/2018). According to that provision, the holders of 
rights to registered geographical designations for agricultural products or 
foodstuffs falling within the scope of Regulation No 1151/2012 would not be able 
to bring actions for infringements committed before the entry into force of the law 
and no administrative penalty proceedings would be initiated for infringements of 
rights to registered geographical designations for agricultural products and 
foodstuffs falling within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 committed 
before the entry into force of the law. 
14 In essence, the appellant in cassation submits that the actions are also unfounded 
on account of the direct application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, which 
precludes national protection of a geographical indication registered solely under 
the national procedure. 
15 The dispute between the parties is essentially limited to the question of whether 
the geographical indication ‘Lyutenitsa Parvomay’, which was registered with the 
Patent Office of the Republic of Bulgaria solely under the national ZMGO 
(repealed) during the period of validity of Regulation No 1151/2012, can enjoy 
the protection under civil law granted by the Bulgarian legal system if the 
infringement at issue was committed on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria 
and the infringer is a trader registered under Bulgarian law. In other words, it is 
necessary to assess whether it is permissible for a geographical indication for an 
agricultural product or a foodstuff (such as Lyutenitsa) to be registered only in one 
specific Member State under its national legislation and to be protected only under 
the national legal system and not under the protection regime provided for and 
established at Union level in Regulation No 1151/2012. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
16 First, the VKS recalls that, according to the Bulgarian national legal system, a 
geographical designation, specifically a geographical indication, inter alia for 
agricultural products and foodstuffs, enjoys national protection if it has been duly 
registered with the competent authority; there is therefore the possibility of 
judicial intervention to prevent unauthorised use by another legal entity, 
KONSERVINVEST 
 
7 
irrespective of its nationality. On the one hand, this guarantees high quality for 
consumers and identifies the product specifications and, on the other hand, creates 
an obstacle to the deterioration of that quality through the production of the same 
product by producers not registered under that procedure. 
17 Next, the VKS points out that the subject matter of the legal protection for 
geographical designations for agricultural products and foodstuffs at Community 
level has been developed in the period spanning from the first Community 
legislative act, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992, to 
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, currently in force, which repealed and replaced 
Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. That legal act 
which is now in force reflects the evolving appreciation for the creation of 
uniform protection mechanisms through registration of geographical indications at 
Union level. 
18 The development of this normative basis to regulate the registration of 
geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs of which the 
quality and uniqueness are associated with certain European regions suggests 
(particularly in the light of Article 9 of Regulation No 1151/2012 read in 
conjunction with recitals 15 and 24 of the Regulation) that national registration 
and national legal protection for those products is precluded. 
19 The VKS takes the view that, despite this trend in the development of the subject 
matter governed by Regulation No 1151/2012, the possibility of registering 
agricultural products and foodstuffs covered by that regulation at national level 
alone is not expressly precluded. Nor is the possibility of specific protection in the 
territory of a Member State expressly precluded where the dispute is between 
local producers of the same agricultural product concerning a geographical 
indication registered only at national level and the alleged infringements were 
committed exclusively within that Member State. 
20 The referring court points out that, on the one hand, EU law does not make 
express provision governing the permissibility of the parallel national registration 
of a geographical indication for agricultural products and foodstuffs and the 
resulting protection only in the territory of the registering Member State. The 
VKS considers that one argument militating in favour of that conclusion consists 
in the fact that Article 9 of Regulation No 1151/2012 does not expressly preclude 
national registration and protection of geographical indications for agricultural 
products and foodstuffs covered by the regulation. On the other hand, that 
provision, interpreted in conjunction with recitals 15 and 24 of the regulation, 
suggests that national protection schemes at national level are not permissible 
outside the cases of transitional protection provided for in the provision in 
question. 
21 For the above reasons, the VKS considers it necessary for the Court of Justice to 
give it a useful interpretation of Article 9 of Regulation No 1151/2012 with a view 
to assessing whether the protection regime established by the regulation precludes 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-35/21 
 
8  
the possibility of national protection under the ZMGO in cases where the 
geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs covered by it are 
registered only in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria in accordance with the 
procedure under the ZMGO and protection is sought against an infringer in the 
same Member State using a name similar to the registered geographical indication.