Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 91997E2485

**WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2485/97 by José BARROS MOURA to the Commission. Designation of origin of Port Wine** 
  
*Official Journal C 082 , 17/03/1998 P. 0091*

  

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2485/97 by José Barros Moura (PSE) to the Commission (16 July 1997)

Subject: Designation of origin of Port Wine

Given the proliferation in various countries of imitation wines bearing names that refer misleadingly to the name of the genuine product (Porto, Port Wine, Vinho do Porto), can the Commission say what measures it intends to take as part of the EU's trade and external relations policy to ensure that the rules governing the designation of origin are respected? More specifically, what arrangements have been reached in the current negotiations with South Africa?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (10 September 1997)

The Commission would point out that one of the main goals it has been pursuing for a long time in the wine sector is the defence of designations of origin and geographical indications for wines at both Community and international level. Inside the Community, this protection is ensured by very comprehensive and effective specific rules. In this connection, wines originating in the region of Oporto and fulfilling the requirements laid down for the designation 'Porto' enjoy exclusive rights to use this name, whether in the original language or in translation (for example 'Port Wine').

World-wide, the entry into force, on 1 January 1996, of the new multilateral Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) marks a considerable advance on the previous situation. Section 3 of Part II of the Agreement contains specific provisions on the protection of geographical indications, including designations of origin. Although Article 23 of the Agreement provides additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits as compared with other products, Article 24(4) permits the use of geographical indications for wines which do not originate in the place in question, provided that those indications were used continuously for similar products before 15 April 1994, either for at least 10 years, or in good faith, and always provided that such use does not mislead the public as to the genuine origin of the wine. In some countries, these conditions of earlier use are met for certain geographical indications or designations of origin of which the name 'Port' forms part.

In order to increase the level of protection of Community geographical indications, and in particular to put an end, in the wine and spirits sectors, to the use of 'semi-generic' names (geographical names used for a product which does not originate in that place), the Commission has negotiated or is negotiating bilateral protection agreements with numerous non-member countries. An good example of such a bilateral agreement is the 1994 agreement on trade in wine between the Community and Australia ((OJ L 86, 31.3.1994. )). Under that agreement, Australia committed itself to giving up, after the transitional periods laid down, all semi-generic names, including the term 'Port', and to granting exclusive and absolute protection to Community wines.

South Africa has for a long time been using certain European geographical names (including the term 'Port') for its own wines which appear to fall within the category of semi-generic names as defined in Article 24(4) of the TRIPS Agreement referred to above. The Commission has begun negotiations with South Africa with the aim of enforcing, on a reciprocal basis, the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of wines and spirits and, in particular, of putting an end to any generic or semi-generic use of Community indications.

[Top](#document1)