Case C-478/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)) — Budějovický Budvar National Corporation v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (Bilateral agreements between Member States — Protection in a Member State of a geographical indication of provenance of another Member State — Designation Bud — Use of the mark American Bud — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Community system of protection of geographical indications and of designations of origin — Accession of the Czech Republic — Transitional measures — Regulation (EC) No 918/2004 — Scope of the Community system — Exhaustive nature)
Date: 2009-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designation of origin, interpretation of the law, location of production, originating product, product designation








C_2009267EN.01001202.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/12





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)) — Budějovický Budvar National Corporation v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
(Case C-478/07) (1)

(Bilateral agreements between Member States - Protection in a Member State of a geographical indication of provenance of another Member State - Designation ‘Bud’ - Use of the mark ‘American Bud’ - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Community system of protection of geographical indications and of designations of origin - Accession of the Czech Republic - Transitional measures - Regulation (EC) No 918/2004 - Scope of the Community system - Exhaustive nature)
2009/C 267/21
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Budějovický Budvar National Corporation

Defendant: Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, 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 foodstuffs in connection with the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 163, p. 88), and Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12) — Designation not the name of a region or place in the State of origin, protected in that Member State as a qualified geographical indication and also protected as a trade mark — Conditions defined by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 Budějovický Budvar under which the absolute protection of such a designation as a geographical indication may be regarded as compatible with Article 28 EC — Effect of the non-registration of such a designation at Community level on the maintenance of its pre-existing national protection and its protection guaranteed by a bilateral agreement in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment







1.


It follows from paragraph 101 of the judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 Budějovický Budvar that:






—


in order to determine whether a designation can be considered to constitute a simple and indirect indication of geographical provenance, protection of which under the bilateral instruments at issue is capable of being justified on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 30 EC, the national court must ascertain whether, according to factual circumstances and perceptions prevailing in the Czech Republic, that designation, even if it is not in itself a geographical name, is at least capable of informing the consumer that the product bearing that indication comes from a particular place or region of that Member State;










—


the national court must, in addition, ascertain, once again in the light of factual circumstances and perceptions prevailing in the Czech Republic, whether, as stated in paragraph 99 of that judgment, the designation at issue in the main proceedings has not, either at the time of the entry into force of the bilateral instruments at issue in the main proceedings or subsequently, become generic in that Member State, the Court of Justice of the European Communities having already held, in paragraphs 99 and 100 of that judgment, that the aim of the system of protection introduced by those instruments falls within the sphere of the protection of industrial and commercial property within the meaning of Article 30 EC;










—


in the absence of any Community provision in that regard, it is for the national court to decide, in accordance with its own national law, whether a consumer survey should be commissioned for the purpose of clarifying the factual circumstances and perceptions prevailing in the Czech Republic in order to ascertain whether the designation ‘Bud’ at issue in the main proceedings can be classified as a simple and indirect indication of geographical provenance and has not become generic in that Member State. It is also in the light of that national law that the national court, if it finds it necessary to commission a consumer survey, must determine, for the purposes of making the necessary assessments, the percentage of consumers that would be sufficiently significant; and










—


Article 30 EC does not lay down specific requirements as to the quality and the duration of the use made of a designation in the Member State of origin for its protection to be justified in the light of that article. Whether such requirements apply in the context of the dispute in the main proceedings must be determined by the national court in the light of the applicable national law, in particular the system of protection laid down by the bilateral instruments at issue in the main proceedings.














2.


The Community system of protection laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs is exhaustive in nature, with the result that that regulation precludes the application of a system of protection laid down by agreements between two Member States, such as the bilateral instruments at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on a designation, which is recognised under the law of a Member State as constituting a designation of origin, protection in another Member State where that protection is actually claimed, despite the fact that no application for registration of that designation of origin has been made in accordance with that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.