Notice of initiation of an examination procedure concerning an obstacle to trade, within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by Canada in relation to certain geographical indications for wines
Date: 2002-05-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, import, intellectual property, marketing restriction, product designation, restriction on competition, wine

C 124/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.2002

Notice of initiation of an examination procedure concerning an obstacle to trade, within the
meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94, consisting of trade practices maintained by
Canada in relation to certain geographical indications for wines

(2002/C 124/05)

On 6 December 2001, the Commission received a complaint,
pursuant
to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No
3286/94 (1) (hereinafter ‘the Regulation’).

1. Complainant

The complaint was lodged by the Conseil Interprofessional du
Vin de Bordeaux (‘CIVB’). The CVIB is a trade organisation
representing winegrowers amd traders in Bordeaux and was
set up in 1948. The CIVB is made up of representatives of
winegrowers and traders who are chosen by their respective
organisations, proposed by each of the production and trader
federations and appointed by the State. The CIVB represents all
winegrowers and over 85 % of traders in the Bordeaux region.

CIVB is an association acting on behalf of Community enter-
prises within the meaning of Articles 2(6) and 4(1) of the
Regulation.

2. Product

This complaint concerns wines with the geographical
cation ‘Bordeaux’ or ‘Médoc’.

indi-

The wines under examination are classified in the combined
nomenclature (CN) under the codes 2204 21 12, 2204 21 42,
2204 29 12 and 2204 29 42.

The examination which the Commission is initiating may also
cover other products which appear to be affected in a similar
way to the wines under investigation and in particular those in
respect of which interested parties
that make themselves
known within the time limits mentioned below (see point 8),
provide evidence that the alleged practices are applicable.

3. Subject

The complaint concerns a trade barrier allegedly caused by
Canada, which adversely affects the Community exports of
the products in question to the Canadian market.

The challenged Canadian practice is based on the legislation
adopted by Canada to implement the Agreement on trade-
related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs). This Act
came into force on 1 January 1996 and amended the Canadian
Trade-Marks Act. It is referred to in the complaint as the C-57
Amendment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
common
down Community procedures
the
commercial policy in order
Community's rights under international trade rules,
in particular
those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organi-
sation (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 71), as last amended by Regu-
lation (EC) No 356/95 (OJ L 41, 23.2.1995, p. 3).

in the
to ensure

field of
the

exercise of

the

According to the complainant, the C-57 Amendment deprives
the geographical indications at issue (Bordeaux and Médoc) of a
standard of protection in compliance with the protection
requirements laid down by TRIPs for geographical indications
for wines.

4. Allegation of obstacles to trade

The complainant claims that Canada by maintaining the above-
mentioned trade measure violates Articles 23(1) and (2) as well
as Article 24(3) of the TRIPs.

The complaint contests Sections 11.14 and 11.15 of the C-57
Amendment, where it is stated that: ‘No person shall adopt in
connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, a
protected geographical
in
respect of a wine not originating in the territory indicated by
the protected geographical indication; or a translation, in any
language of the geographical indication in respect of that wine.’

indication identifying a wine

and (4) of

Canada implemented Article 23 of the TRIPs via a registration
conferred on
system allowing special protection to be
indications for wines and spirits. Nonetheless,
geographical
subsections 11.18(3)
the C-57 Amendment
‘Nothwithstanding Sections 11.14 and 11.15
provides that:
and paragraphs 12(1)(g) and (h), nothing in any of
those
provisions prevents the adoption, use or registration as a
trademark or otherwise, in connection with a business, of the
following indications; in respect of wines: . . . (m) Bordeaux; . . .
(r) Médoc; (s) Médoc . . .’. Accordingly, ‘Bordeaux’ and ‘Médoc’
special
geographical
indications
the C-57
protection provided for
Amendment.

are
in Section 11.14 of

excluded from the

The complainant also claims that the C-57 Amendment is in
breach of the so-called ‘standstill obligation’ provided for by
Article 24(3) of TRIPs.

The complainant has provided sufficient prima-facie evidence
that the contested measures are inconsistent with the obli-
gations of Canada under the WTO Agreement,
in particular
with Articles 23(1), 23(2) and 24(3) of TRIPs, and that they
thereby constitute an obstacle to trade within the meaning of
Article 2(1) of the TBR.

5. Allegation of adverse trade effects

The complainant contends that it is suffering, and is threatened
with further, adverse trade effects within the meaning of Article
2(4) of the Regulation.

25.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 124/7

The alleged obstacles to trade identified in CIVB's complaint,
i.e. the qualification of ‘Bordeaux’ and ‘Médoc’ as generic under
Canadian law, appear, to deprive the complainant of its intel-
lectual property rights in ‘Bordeaux’ and ‘Médoc’
in Canada,
thus causing adverse trade effects.

The adverse trade effects referred to above could have a
the Community,
material
the
namely the Bordeaux reigon in France where most of
exported wine is produced.

impact on a specific region of

Under such circumstances, there appears to be prima facie
evidence of adverse trade effects as defined in Article 2(4) of
the Regulation.

6. Community interest

A correct implementation of the TRIPs Agreement by Canada
is undeniably in the interest of the Community. The protection
and enforcement of these rights, and in particular of denomi-
nations of origin, is of great importance for the economy of
several regions of the Community. In this connection, there is a
need to examine the WTO compatibility of the Canadian trade
practices concerning protection of geographical indications.

The Commission is currently negotiating an agreement with
Canada on trade in wine and spirits, aimed, among other
things, at improving the protection of EC denominations of
in that
in particular by ending their generic usage,
origin,
country.
could
this agreement
the Community
represent an appropriate means to protect
interests in this field.

successfully concluded,

If

7. Procedure

Having decided, after consultation of the Advisory Committee
established by the Regulation, that there is sufficient evidence
to justify initiating an examination procedure for the purpose
of considering the legal and factual issues involved, and that
this is in the interest of the Community, the Commission has
commenced an examination in accordance with Article 8 of
the Regulation.

Interested parties may make themselves known and make
known their views in writing, in particular by addressing the
specific issues raised in the complaint, and by providing
supporting evidence.

Furthermore, the Commission will hear parties who so request
in writing when making themselves known, provided that they
are a party primarily concerned by the result of the procedure.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) of
the Regulation.

8. Time limit

Any information relating to the matter and any requests for
hearings should be sent in writing to:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Trade
Mr Ignacio Garcia Bercero, DG Trade D/3
CHAR 9/74
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 299 32 64.

Given the above circumstances, it is considered to be in the
Community's interest to initiate an examination procedure.

Any such information or request for a hearing should reach the
Commission not later than 30 days following the publication
of this notice.