• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Black Forest ham still to be packed elsewhere

15. October 2019

For the time being, Black Forest ham is not only cut and packaged in the Black Forest, but also elsewhere, the Federal Patent Court has ruled. The packaging dispute over the origin-protected ham has been conducted by many instances for 14 years.

Schwarzwälder SchinkenThe judgment of the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) is part of the dispute that has been going on since 2005 over the packaging of a foodstuff that is protected by the EU geographical indications “protected geographical indication”. German “Schwarzwälder Schinken” (in engl. : Black Forest ham) has been under this protection since 1997 and derives the right from it that the corresponding ham must also be cut and packaged in the Black Forest. For this is the only way to ensure that Black Forest hams can really be found in the packaging of sliced ham.

Therefore, in 2005 the German Schutzverband der Schwarzwälder Schinkenhersteller (in engl.: Protection Association of Black Forest Ham Producers) applied for an amendment to the specification of the protected indication “Black Forest ham” in order to ensure that in future commercial slicing and packaging would also have to take place in the Black Forest. The North German Abraham Schinken GmbH contradicted this.

Packaging dispute by many instances

The litigation was conducted by many instances and in December 2018 also before the highest European court (ECJ). The ECJ had ruled that Black Forest ham must be sliced and packaged in the Black Forest if it is a necessary and proportionate means to preserve the quality of the product or ensure its origin or control of the specification for the protected geographical indication. It is for the national court to determine whether that is necessary and proportionate.

Please read here our full report on the packaging dispute about Black Forest Ham before the European Court of Justice.

Neither proportionate nor necessary

This preliminary ruling was taken up by the Bundespatentgericht. The Association for the Protection of Black Forest Ham Producers had argued that it was hardly possible to tell from a sliced ham whether it was really Black Forest ham. In addition, aroma packs with a shelf life of more than 30 days had to be microbiologically designed and this was preferable to vacuum packaging. However, since vacuum packaging cannot be considered for a shelf life of more than 30 days anyway, such an aroma packaging is a technically necessary measure which does not require any geographical link to the production area, the BPatG explained.

A so-called quantity plausibility check was also discussed, which checks whether the outgoing goods quantity roughly corresponds to the incoming goods quantity. Such an examination for Black Forest hams does not require any specialist knowledge and can also be carried out elsewhere than in the region of origin, the court explained.

Two product-specific requirements for Black Forest hams

In fact, the Court accepted only two definitive requirements which could be considered product-specific measures for Black Forest hams, namely the limitation of the thickness of the slices to a maximum of 1,3 mm applicable to this ham and an obligatory intermediate cleaning/disinfection if not only Black Forest hams but also other products are cut in cutting machines, in particular a product affected by natural mould.

The thickness of the slices could, however, be checked by any food inspector and by simple test purchases; this did not require any official and sovereign powers of an inspection authority, which, according to the nature of the matter, would have to take place in the processing plant. A restriction of cutting and packaging to the production area would therefore neither be proportionate nor necessary, the BPatG ruled.

Nor can the mandatory intermediate cleaning of cutting systems justify a restriction of cutting and packaging to the Black Forest. This specification does not contain any information on how this requirement is to be checked, so that in the end it can only be established retrospectively that the requirement was infringed – in the case of contamination. A then necessary abuse control is possible in the production area as well as elsewhere.

ECJ judges restrictively in Proscuitto di Parma

In the cases ‘Proscuitto di Parma’ and ‘Grana Padano’ (judgment of 20 May 2003 in Joined Cases C-108/01 and C-469/00), the ECJ interpreted the question of packaging restrictively and allowed the processing steps of slicing and packaging only in the region of origin by means of specifications in the specification. However, the Federal Patent Court declared that the present case of Black Forest ham differed significantly from the “Prosciutto di Parma” case. In that case, for example, not all hams conforming to the specifications could have been cut, but only legs which met certain more stringent additional requirements, in particular with regard to weight, ripening time, water activity, moisture content and absence of visible defects. Parma ham must not only be produced in Parma, it must also be sliced and packaged there. Spicy, this led to a Chinese interpretation of the judgment in the case of Parma ham. In 2011, the German newspaper Hamburger Abendblatt reported that a city called Parma had been founded in China without further ado – and that the matching ham had been brought to the domestic Chinese market.

Appeal may be brought against this judgement

The judgment of the Federal Patent Court allows the appeal to be brought before the Federal Court of Justice, which means that the legal dispute can still be continued before the Federal Court of Justice. For the time being, Black Forest ham will continue to be cut and packaged elsewhere.

Would you also like to protect or defend a trademark?

Our patent attorneys and attorneys at law are experienced and highly qualified in all areas of intellectual property law, both nationally and internationally.

Please feel free to request our callback!


 

 

 

Sources:

Judgement of Bundespatentgericht 30 W (pat) 33/09 (in German)

Image:

MarcusHendrich / www.pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconamendment of specification,  Black Forest Ham,  designation of origin 'protected geographical indication',  ECJ,  EuGH,  intermediate cleaning,  packaged,  packaging dispute,  packaging issue,  product-specific specifications,  production area,  Proscuitto di Parma,  Schwarzwälder Schinken,  slice thickness,  sliced

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.