• 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

German Balsamico vinegar? No infringement for the General Advocate

29. July 2019

Does a product such as German Balsamico infringe the term “Aceto Balsamico di Modena”, protected as a designation of origin and geographical indication? The General Advocate is in favour of the German Balsamico.

Deutscher Balsamico

German Balsamico – association with Italian Balsamico di Modena?

In his Opinion, the Advocate General has spoken in favour of German balsamic vinegar. This is the recent stage, for the time being, of years of dispute between the Italian producer group (Consorzio) of products protected as “Aceto Balsamico di Modena” – protected as a designation of origin (g.U.) and geographical indication (g.t.A.) –  and Balema GmbH (Germany), which markets products such as German Balsamico.

The products of Balema GmbH are clearly labelled as German products, with the inscription “Theo der vineagar producer, maturation in the wooden barrel, German Balsamico traditional, naturally cloudy from Baden wines”. The Italian Consorzio warned the German manufacturer and Balema GmbH filed a negative declaratory action.

The Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court granted the claim in 2017. The Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena appealed against this judgment before the BGH (I ZR 253/16), which considers its judgment to be imperatively connected with the interpretation of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 and has accordingly made a reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

Protection of the overall designation – also guarantee protection of the non-geographical terms therein?

The Supreme European Court (ECJ) is therefore asked whether the protection conferred by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 on the collective name “Aceto Balsamico di Modena” extends to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of the compound name (“Aceto”, “Balsamico”, “Aceto Balsamico”).

In his yesterday’s Opinion, the Advocate General has pointed out that the term ‘generic name’ is used with two and essentially different meanings: first, for product names which have become a general name for a product in the Union, even though they refer to the place, region or country in which the product was originally manufactured or marketed (pursuant to Article 2(1) of the EC Treaty). 3(6) of Regulation No 1151/2012), on the other hand, as a term for general or common words which, precisely because of their generic quality, do not satisfy the conditions for registration as a PGI or PDO. (Read more about the geographical EU designations of origin in our article: EU geographical designation: Dresden Christstollen also protected internationally?)

The Advocate General also stated that a compound name entered in the PGI and PDO register may contain generic or otherwise unprotected elements and that the use of that generic element is not an infringement of the protected designation.

“Aceto”, “balsamico” and “Aceto Balsamico”: general words

In the present case, the Advocate General considers that the terms ‘aceto’, ‘balsamico’ and ‘aceto balsamico’ are general words. Only the obvious geographical reference of the word ‘Modena’ evokes an association with ‘Aceto balsamico tradizionale di Modena’, even if it designates other vinegars or spices.

The Advocate General therefore proposes that the general and non-geographical terms like aceto, balsamico and aceto balsamico may be used without infringing the right of “aceto balsamico di Modena” to protection.

Should the European Court of Justice (ECJ) endorse the arguments of the Advocate General, the defendant Balema GmbH could continue to market German Balsamico.

The case also arouses the international interest. The Governments of Germany, Greece and France all took the view that the terms “aceto”, “aceto balsamico” and “balsamico” were generic or non-geographical and that only the generic term “aceto balsamico di Modena” should be protected instead of their individual non-geographical terms. This view was confirmed by yesterday’s Opinion of the Advocate General.

Protected geographical indication – other recent judgments:

  • Geographical word mark Swabian Glen Whisky: Glen sounds too Scottish
  • Grand Canyon rejected as word mark in Japan
  • ECJ: Packaging dispute about Black Forest ham decided

 

Would you also like to protect your brand or a foodstuff?

Our attorneys have many years of experience in trademark law and intellectual property law and are authorized to represent you before any court in Germany as well as internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.


 

 

 

Sources:

Opinion of General Advocate “Deutscher Balsamico” EU:C:2019:650

Image:

eak_kkk /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconProduct- and Trademark piracy,  Trademark Law Tag icondesignation of origin,  Deutscher Balsamico,  General Advocate,  geografic origin,  Geographical indications,  German Balsamico,  Modena,  opinion of general advocate,  vinegar

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Product- and Trademark piracy

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.