Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case C‑310/17

Levola Hengelo BV

v

Smilde Foods BV

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Scope — Article 2 — Reproduction rights — Concept of ‘work’ — Taste of a food product)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 13 November 2018

1. Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29 — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Scope — Work — Concept — Independent and uniform interpretation — Classification of subject matter as a work — Cumulative conditions

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29, Arts 2 to 5)
2. Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29 — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works — Binding on the European Union — Scope

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29)
3. Approximation of laws — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29 — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Scope — Work — Concept — Taste of a food product — Not included — National legislation granting copyright protection to such a taste — Not permissible

   (European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29)

1. See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 33, 36, 37)
2. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 38)
3. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding (i) the taste of a food product from being protected by copyright under that directive and (ii) national legislation from being interpreted in such a way that it grants copyright protection to such a taste.

   That is because, first, the authorities responsible for ensuring that the exclusive rights inherent in copyright are protected must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, the subject matter so protected. The same is true for individuals, in particular economic operators, who must be able to identify, clearly and precisely, what is the subject matter of protection which third parties, especially competitors, enjoy. Secondly, the need to ensure that there is no element of subjectivity –– given that it is detrimental to legal certainty –– in the process of identifying the protected subject matter means that the latter must be capable of being expressed in a precise and objective manner. The taste of a food product cannot, however, be pinned down with precision and objectivity. Unlike, for example, a literary, pictorial, cinematographic or musical work, which is a precise and objective form of expression, the taste of a food product will be identified essentially on the basis of taste sensations and experiences, which are subjective and variable since they depend, inter alia, on factors particular to the person tasting the product concerned, such as age, food preferences and consumption habits, as well as on the environment or context in which the product is consumed. Moreover, it is not possible in the current state of scientific development to achieve by technical means a precise and objective identification of the taste of a food product which enables it to be distinguished from the taste of other products of the same kind.

   (see paras 41-43, 46, operative part)

[Top](#document1)