Denmark has definitively lost the battle of the slice

Denmark breached its obligations by failing to take measures to end the use of the name “feta” for cheeses intended for export to third countries, the Court of Justice of the EU said in a statement.

However, Denmark did not breach the obligation of good faith cooperation.

In particular, as announced today by the European Court of Justice, the word “slice” was registered as a protected designation of origin (PDO) in 2002.

Since then, the name ‘feta’ can only be used for cheese produced in the demarcated geographical area of Greece and meets the relevant product specifications.

In the context of the present infringement proceedings by a Member State, the Commission, supported by Greece and Cyprus, claimed that Denmark breached its obligations under Regulation 1151/2012 2 by failing to take measures to prevent or stop the use of the name ‘feta’ for cheese produced in Denmark but intended for export to third countries.

Denmark countered, for its part, that Regulation 1151/2012 only applies to products sold within the Union and does not cover exports to third countries.

It therefore admits that it has never taken any measures to prevent or put an end to the use of the name ‘feta’ by domestic producers in cases where their products are intended for export to third countries.

With today’s decision, the Court rules, firstly, that based on the letter of Regulation 1151/2012 the use of a registered name to identify products not covered by the registration that are manufactured in the Union and intended for export to third countries is not excluded from the prohibition provided for by the regulation.

Regarding, secondly, the whole framework of Regulation 1151/2012, the Court points out that the Regulation protects PDOs and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs) as intellectual property rights. The system of PDOs and PGIs was established to support producers of products linked to specific geographical areas by ensuring uniform protection of names as intellectual property rights across the Union.

However, the use of a PDO or PGI to identify a product that is manufactured within the Union but does not meet the applicable specifications infringes, in the Union, the corresponding PDO or PGI as an intellectual property right, even if this product is intended for export to third countries .

Thirdly, as regards the objectives pursued by Regulation 1151/2012, the Court recalls that the purpose of PDOs and PGIs lies in providing assistance to producers of products linked to specific geographical areas by ensuring fair returns, commensurate with the quality of the products them, in securing uniform protection of names as intellectual property rights throughout the Union and in providing clear information to consumers about the properties of products which give them added value. And the use of the PDO “slice” to identify products that are manufactured within the Union but do not meet the specifications of the relevant PDO affects the aforementioned purposes, even if these products are intended for export to third countries.

Therefore, it follows both from the letter and from the whole context and purposes of Regulation 1151/2012 that such use is listed among the actions prohibited by the Regulation.

The Court therefore concludes that Denmark, by failing to take measures to prevent and stop this type of use on its territory, has breached its obligations under Regulation 1151/2012.

In response to the second complaint put forward by the Commission, the Court finds that Denmark has not breached the obligations arising from the principle of cooperation in good faith referred to in Article 4(3) TEU. In particular, the Commission’s complaint in question alleges the same conduct as the first complaint, namely the failure to take measures to prevent and stop the use of the PDO “feta” by Danish producers to identify cheese that does not meet the applicable specifications.

While it is true that the export, by Union producers to third countries, of products in relation to which a PDO is used illegally may weaken the Union’s position in international negotiations aimed at securing the Union’s quality protection systems, it is not found in this case that Denmark performed acts or statements that could have this effect, which would indeed constitute conduct distinct from that to which the first allegation related.

RES-EMP

View the news feed and get the latest news.