Case C-478/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Budějovický Budvar národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
Date: 2007-10-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designation of origin, interpretation of the law, location of production, originating product, product designation

C 22/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht
Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Budějovický
Budvar národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

(Case C-478/07)

(2008/C 22/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar národní podnik

Defendant: Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

Questions referred

1. In its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 the
Court of Justice defined the requirements for the compat-
ibility with Article 28 EC of the protection of a designation
as a geographical indication which in the country of origin is
the name neither of a place nor of a region, namely that
such a designation must,

— according to the factual circumstances and

— perceptions in the country of origin, designate a region

or a place in that State,

— and that its protection must be justified there on the

basis of the criteria laid down in Article 30 EC.

Do those requirements mean:

1.1. that the designation as such fulfils a specific geogra-
phical indication function referring to a particular place
or a particular region, or does it suffice that the desig-
nation is capable,
in conjunction with the product
bearing it, of informing consumers that the product
bearing it comes from a particular place or a particular
region in the country of origin;

in connection with the accession of

month period provided for in [Commission] Regulation (EC)
No 918/2004 [of 29 April 2004 introducing transitional
arrangements for the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and food-
stuffs
the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,
Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia] (1) or otherwise in the context
of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 [of 20 March
indications and
2006 on the protection of geographical
designations of origin for agricultural products and food-
stuffs] (2) mean that existing national protection, or in any
case protection that has been extended bilaterally to another
Member State, becomes void if the designation is a qualified
geographical indication under the national law of the State
of origin?

3. Does the circumstance that, in the context of the Treaty of
the European
Accession between the Member States of
Union and a new Member State, the protection of several
qualified geographical
indications for a foodstuff has been
claimed by that Member State in accordance with Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006 mean that national protection, or in any
case protection that has been extended bilaterally to another
Member State, for another designation for the same product
may no longer be maintained,
and Regulation (EC)
No 510/2006 has preclusive effect to that extent?

(1) OJ L 163 of 30.4.2004, p. 88.
(2) OJ L 93 of 31.3.2006, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2007 —
Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werkne-
mersverzekeringen v H. Akdas and Others

(Case C-485/07)

(2008/C 22/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

1.2. that the three conditions are conditions to be examined

separately and to be satisfied cumulatively;

Referring court

1.3. that a consumer survey is to be carried out for ascer-
taining perceptions in the country of origin, and, if so,
that that a low, medium or high degree of recognition
and association is required;

1.4. that the designation has actually been used as a geogra-
phical indication by several undertakings, not just one
undertaking, in the country of origin and that use as a
trade mark by a single undertaking precludes protec-
tion?

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut
werknemersverzekeringen

2. Does the circumstance that a designation has not been noti-
fied or its registration applied for either within the six-

Defendants: H. Akdas and Others