WRITTEN QUESTION P-1769/01 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission. The electronic market and the safeguarding of designations of origin.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, competition law, consumer protection, designation of origin, electronic commerce, industrial counterfeiting, intellectual property, product designation, trade-mark law

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/201

(2001/C 364 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1769/01

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: The electronic market and the safeguarding of designations of origin

Globalisation and electronic commerce are threatening intellectual property and designations of (cid:145)typical(cid:146)
products to such an extent that they must be protected without delay. Typical Italian products are under
threat in that imitations of (cid:145)regional(cid:146) products are being traded in an uncontrolled and unrestricted way on
the Net.

Rules are needed to put a stop to all wrongful commercial practices which are distorting international
competition, deceiving consumers and damaging producers. The Court of Justice decision expected on
6 June may prove decisive for the future of products such as Parmesan, Parma ham, Gorgonzola, wines
and olive oil.

These attacks on typical products come at a time when revision of the common agricultural policy is being
debated and they are favouring products of suspect origin and dubious quality. What will the Commission
do to ensure implementation of standards capable of safeguarding the lawful trade in agri-foodstuff
products of specific quality and to protect the SMEs and small producers working in these sectors?

Why is Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) (framework law protecting consumers from wrongful
trading and producers from misappropriation of product names, and safeguarding designations of origin
and geographical
indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs at Community level) which was
referred to in the Commission(cid:146)s answer to a previous question (P-0724/01 (2)) not being applied? Is it
perhaps inadequate?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 240.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2001)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 lays down the rules for the protection of
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

As already stated in the answer to Written Question E-794/01 by Mr Vinci and Mr Bertinotti (1), the
registration under this Regulation gives producers an exclusive right to use the registered name for their
products. This is an industrial property right.

The basic feature of the exclusive right is thus that other people than the producers concerned are not
allowed to use the name. Article 13 of the Regulation establishes the exact significance of the term (cid:145)use(cid:146),
and sets out the powers available to holders of the right. These powers are extensive. The prohibition
covers all practices that refer in any way at all to a protected geographical
indication so as to take
unjustified advantage of its reputation. The Regulation thus durably strengthens the position of the
producers entitled to use the registered name for their products.

The Regulation specifically prohibits the following practices:

(cid:129) any direct or indirect commercial use of a name registered in respect of products not covered by the
registration in so far as those products are comparable to the products registered under that name or
insofar as using the name exploits the reputation of the protected name;

(cid:129) any misuse,

imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated or if the
(cid:145)as

protected name is translated or accompanied by an expression such as (cid:145)style(cid:146),
produced in(cid:146), (cid:145)imitation(cid:146) or similar;

(cid:145)method(cid:146),

(cid:145)type(cid:146),

C 364 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

(cid:129) any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of
the product, on the inner or outer packaging, advertising material or documents relating to the
product concerned, and the packing of the product in a container liable to convey a false impression
as to its origin;

(cid:129) any other practice liable to mislead the public as to the true origin of the product.

However,
to enable manufacturers to adjust to these rules, the Regulation provides for transitional
arrangements in cases expressly provided: Member States may maintain national systems that permit the
use of names registered under the simplified procedure for a period of not more than five years after the
date of publication of
the Registration. A transitional period may also be awarded, under certain
conditions, for names registered under the ordinary procedure. This is the reason why the use of certain
designations has been in certain cases transitory admitted for products not complying with the registered
product specification.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 certainly lays down a well-structured and solid legal framework to
guarantee producers from abuse and unfair appropriation.

Obviously, no guarantee can be valid unless there is an inspection system. The Regulation provides that
Member States are responsible for the inspections, where they have some leeway to organise their own
systems. However, Article 10 is related only to the control of the registered denominations and do not deal
with illegal uses of these denominations. Enforcing the property rights awarded under the Regulation is
under the responsibility of the Member States and national courts may decide on any infringement of these
property rights.

The protection granted by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 only applies at Community level, except
in case of bilateral or multilateral agreements.

In addition, the Commission has been actively involved in promoting discussions on how to improve the
already existing level of protection available to geographical
indications for agricultural products and
foodstuffs under the trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Agreement.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 37.

(2001/C 364 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1774/01

by Ursula Stenzel (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 June 2001)

Subject: German packaging regulation (cid:129) discrimination against drinks containers

The current German packaging regulation provides for a compulsory deposit on containers for certain
drinks, which becomes effective if the percentage of refillable containers used for a particular drink falls
below 72 %. A far lower threshold of 20 % is applied to milk. Despite the longstanding misgivings about
the German provisions, Germany announced an amended regulation, introducing the hitherto threatened
compulsory deposit, irrespective of the refillable container quota. The exceptions are refillable containers,
plasticised cardboard cartons and polythene plastic bags for milk, which are regarded as environmentally
acceptable. Milk and wine are exempt from the deposit de jure, regardless of whether they are sold in
(allegedly) environmentally unacceptable or acceptable containers. The message from the legislator to the
consumer, therefore, is that wine in glass bottles is good whereas fruit juice in glass bottles is bad.

Under what circumstances, does the Commission consider the exceptions (different refillable container
quotas; compulsory deposit only for certain drinks) to be non-discriminatory?

Does the Commission consider refillable container quotas and compulsory deposits on drinks containers to
be discriminatory under certain circumstances compared with other waste packaging, particularly in view
of the fact that drinks containers make up only a small percentage of waste packaging as a whole and of
residual waste?