CJEU - C‑159/20 - Commission v Denmark
Undertakings with registered offices in Denmark were exporting cheese to third countries under the Designation “Feta”, “Danish Feta” and “Danish Feta cheese”, even if these products do not comply with the product specification for the PDO “Feta”. After a complaint by Greek authorities, Danish authorities replied that it was not contrary to EU law, as Reg.1151/2012 only applies to products sold within EU territory and not outside the EU. Thus, Danish authorities claimed to be allowed to use the name ‘Feta’ to designate Danish cheese exported to third countries where that name is not protected. The question that the CJEU needed to answer was whether the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. Holding — 1. Violation of Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 The CJEU held that when interpreting Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012, one must consider its wording and also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (C-569/20 Spetsializirana prokuratura). Concerning the wording of Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012, the term “any use” includes the use of a registered name to designate products not covered by the registration which are produced in the EU and intended for export to third countries is not excluded from that prohibition. Concerning the context where this provision was adopted, two elements seem to be decisive. First, the fact that the regulation was adopted based on Article 118(1) TFEU, which empowers the European Parliament and the Council to establish, in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the EU. The use of a PDO or PGI to designate a product produced in the territory of the EU which does not comply with the applicable product specification impairs, within the EU, the intellectual property right constituted by that PDO or PGI, even if that product is intended for export to third countries. Second, the objectives behind the Regulation, namely informing consumers and ensuring that producers secure fair returns for the quality of their products. These two objectives are linked as since the purpose of informing consumers is in particular to enable agricultural operators to secure higher incomes in return for a genuine effort to improve quality. Thus, the use of the PDO ‘Feta’ to designate products produced in the territory of the EU which do not comply with the product specification for that PDO undermines those two objectives, even if those products are intended for export to third countries. Thus the CJEU concluded that by failing to prevent or stop the use of the Designation “Feta”, “Danish Feta” and “Danish Feta cheese” in its territory, the Kingdom of Denmark violated Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012. 2. Violation of the principle of sincere cooperation The second complaint, alleging a violation of the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU, is closely related to the first complaint. The CJEU noted that the Commission has not shown any distinct conduct by Denmark beyond the violation of Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012, such as encouraging unlawful use or making statements that would harm the EU's position in international negotiations. Therefore, the second complaint is rejected, and the Court rules that Denmark has breached Article 13(3) Reg.1151/2012 but dismisses the rest of the action.
How it connects
Related across sources
Full text 6 paragraphs
Facts — Undertakings with registered offices in Denmark were exporting cheese to third countries under the Designation “Feta”, “Danish Feta” and “Danish Feta cheese”, even if these products do not comply with the product specification for the PDO “Feta”. 1151/2012 only applies to products sold within EU territory and not outside the EU. Thus, Danish authorities claimed to be allowed to use the name ‘Feta’ to designate Danish cheese exported to third countries where that name is not protected. The question that the CJEU needed to answer was whether the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. Holding — 1. 1151/2012, one must consider its wording and also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (C-569/20 Spetsializirana prokuratura).
1151/2012, the term “any use” includes the use of a registered name to designate products not covered by the registration which are produced in the EU and intended for export to third countries is not excluded from that prohibition. Concerning the context where this provision was adopted, two elements seem to be decisive. First, the fact that the regulation was adopted based on Article 118(1) TFEU, which empowers the European Parliament and the Council to establish, in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the EU. The use of a PDO or PGI to designate a product produced in the territory of the EU which does not comply with the applicable product specification impairs, within the EU, the intellectual property right constituted by that PDO or PGI, even if that product is intended for export to third countries.
Second, the objectives behind the Regulation, namely informing consumers and ensuring that producers secure fair returns for the quality of their products. These two objectives are linked as since the purpose of informing consumers is in particular to enable agricultural operators to secure higher incomes in return for a genuine effort to improve quality. Thus, the use of the PDO ‘Feta’ to designate products produced in the territory of the EU which do not comply with the product specification for that PDO undermines those two objectives, even if those products are intended for export to third countries. 1151/2012. 2. Violation of the principle of sincere cooperation The second complaint, alleging a violation of the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU, is closely related to the first complaint. 1151/2012, such as encouraging unlawful use or making statements that would harm the EU's position in international negotiations.
1151/2012 but dismisses the rest of the action. Holding — 1. 1151/2012, one must consider its wording and also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (C-569/20 Spetsializirana prokuratura). 1151/2012, the term “any use” includes the use of a registered name to designate products not covered by the registration which are produced in the EU and intended for export to third countries is not excluded from that prohibition. Concerning the context where this provision was adopted, two elements seem to be decisive. First, the fact that the regulation was adopted based on Article 118(1) TFEU, which empowers the European Parliament and the Council to establish, in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market, measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights throughout the EU.
The use of a PDO or PGI to designate a product produced in the territory of the EU which does not comply with the applicable product specification impairs, within the EU, the intellectual property right constituted by that PDO or PGI, even if that product is intended for export to third countries. Second, the objectives behind the Regulation, namely informing consumers and ensuring that producers secure fair returns for the quality of their products. These two objectives are linked as since the purpose of informing consumers is in particular to enable agricultural operators to secure higher incomes in return for a genuine effort to improve quality. Thus, the use of the PDO ‘Feta’ to designate products produced in the territory of the EU which do not comply with the product specification for that PDO undermines those two objectives, even if those products are intended for export to third countries.
1151/2012. 2. Violation of the principle of sincere cooperation The second complaint, alleging a violation of the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU, is closely related to the first complaint. 1151/2012, such as encouraging unlawful use or making statements that would harm the EU's position in international negotiations. 1151/2012 but dismisses the rest of the action. Comment — Share your comments here!