Case C-446/07: 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
Date: 2007-10-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, designation of origin, foodstuff, interpretation of the law, location of production, product designation

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

a period of time considerably pre-dating the registration of
that collective mark?

(Case C-446/07)

(2008/C 51/52)

Language of the case: Italian

(1) OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12.
(2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
(3) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Modena

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Alberto Severi, Cavazzuti e figli

Defendant: Regione Emilia-Romagna

Appeal brought on 21 November 2007 by AGC Flat Glass
Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA, against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on
12 September 2007 in Case T-141/06: Glaverbel SA v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-513/07 P)

(2008/C 51/53)

Language of the case: English

Questions referred

Parties

and

3(1)

13(2)

of Regulation

1. Must Articles 3(1) and 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92
(now Articles
(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,
the
submission of an application to the Commission for registra-
tion 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?

for which, at national

level,

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 uninter-
ruptedly 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

First Council Directive
the
89/104/EEC (3) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be inter-
preted 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

Appellant: AGC Flat Glass Europe SA, formerly Glaverbel SA
(represented by: S. Möbus and T. Koerl, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the judgment of

Instance of
12 September 2007 in case T-141/06 concerning the Com-
munity trade mark application No 3183068;

the Court of First

— order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the appealed judgment of the Court
of First Instance is based on a wrong intepretation of Article 7(3)
of
(hereinafter
‘CTMR’) caused by a wrong assessment of the target public and
a wrong assessment of the territory which has to be considered.

the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1)

1. Contrary to the assessment of the Court of First Instance the
target public consists of specialists of the glass industry only.
The Court of
incorrectly applied
Article 7(3) CTMR in respect of the assessment of the target
public.

Instance

thus

First