CELEX: 62016CA0393
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-393/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) — Scope — Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO — Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO — False or misleading indication — PDO ‘Champagne’ used in the name of a foodstuff — The name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ — Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient — Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic)

26.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/17
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd
   (Case C-393/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Protection of protected designations of origin (PDOs) - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Article 118m(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 103(2)(a)(ii), (b) and (c) - Scope - Exploitation of the reputation of a PDO - Misuse, imitation or evocation of a PDO - False or misleading indication - PDO ‘Champagne’ used in the name of a foodstuff - The name ‘Champagner Sorbet’ - Foodstuff containing champagne as an ingredient - Ingredient conferring on the foodstuff an essential characteristic))
   (2018/C 072/22)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne
   
      Defendant: Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH & Co. OHG, represented by Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs-GmbH, formerly Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd
   
      Intervener in support of the defendant: Galana NV
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 October 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 are to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of those provisions covers a situation where a protected designation of origin, such as ‘Champagne’, is used as part of the name under which a foodstuff is sold, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, and where that foodstuff does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient which does correspond to those specifications.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, constitutes exploitation of the reputation of a protected designation of origin, within the meaning of those provisions, if that foodstuff does not have, as one of its essential characteristics, a taste attributable primarily to the presence of that ingredient in the composition of the foodstuff.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 118m(2)(b) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the name under which is sold a foodstuff that does not correspond to the product specifications for that protected designation of origin but contains an ingredient that does correspond to those specifications, such as ‘Champagner Sorbet’, does not constitute misuse, imitation or evocation within the meaning of those provisions.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Article 118m(2)(c) of Regulation No 1234/2007, as amended by Regulation No 491/2009, and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation No 1308/2013 are to be interpreted as being applicable both to false or misleading indications which are liable to convey a false impression as to the geographical origin of the product concerned and to false or misleading indications relating to the nature or essential qualities of the product.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.