{"id":10879,"date":"2020-12-29T09:30:30","date_gmt":"2020-12-29T08:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/?p=10879"},"modified":"2020-12-28T14:59:42","modified_gmt":"2020-12-28T13:59:42","slug":"the-value-of-the-designations-of-origin-dont-be-fooled-by-the-galician-mussels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/intellectual-property\/the-value-of-the-designations-of-origin-dont-be-fooled-by-the-galician-mussels","title":{"rendered":"The value of the designations of origin: don’t be fooled by the (Galician) mussels"},"content":{"rendered":"

The use of Designations of Origin (DO) is of utmost importance to guarantee consumers that the products they are acquiring comply with specific quality standards and that come from a specific geographical origin. The doubt arises when producers intend to make similar or evocative, but not identical, use of the protected DO. How far can they go without infringing the DO?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the issue that has confronted the National Association of Canned Food and Seafood Manufacturers – National Technical Centre for the Conservation of Fishery Products (ANFACO-CECOPESCA<\/a>), on the one part, and the Galician Institute for Consumer Affairs and Competition and the DO Mejill\u00f3n de Galicia<\/a>,, on the other hand, and which has been decided by the High Regional Court of Justice (TSJ), Litigation Chamber, of Galicia in its ruling of 2 October 2020<\/a>.\u00a0 Before going into detail in this specific case, it is worth briefly looking at two relevant precedents in order to understand the line of jurisprudence and regulations being followed in relation to DO.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Relevant background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Firstly, we deal with the ruling<\/a> issued on 22 January 2016 by the Provincial Court of Pontevedra (JAVIMAR case). The ruling concluded that the use of the signs “de las R\u00edas Gallegas<\/strong>“, “Fabricado en Galicia<\/strong>” or “Envasado en Galicia<\/strong>” for canned mussels constituted an infringement of the DO Mejill\u00f3n de Galicia by evoking or being improperly associated with that DO, giving consumers the impression that the products were covered by that DO.<\/p>\n

Following this line of jurisprudence, a joint instruction was issued by several Galician councils ordering the modification of the labelling of those products which even though contain Galician mussels, they were not covered by the DO Mejill\u00f3n de Galicia. The Instruction expressly states that, \u201cnon poder\u00e1n elaborar conservas con indicaci\u00f3ns na etiquetaxe relativas a Galicia ou que podan evocar ao mexill\u00f3n de Galicia<\/u><\/strong> cando o ingrediente non sexa mexill\u00f3n amparado pola DOP Mexill\u00f3n de Galicia<\/em>\u201d. Transcurrido el plazo otorgado, la autoridad administrativa remiti\u00f3 varios requerimientos a todas aquellas empresas que no cumplieron con lo anterior.<\/p>\n

More recently, the European Court of Justice ruling of 2 May 2019 (C-614\/17<\/a>) resolved a question referred in connection with the DO \u201cQueso Manchego\u201d. The European Court of Justice concluded that the DO referred not only to the words by which a registered name may be evoked, but also to any figurative sign which may bring to the mind of the consumer the products covered by the registered name itself. In other words, the evocation will exist even if \u2018such figurative signs are used by a product which is established in the same region, but whose products, similar or comparable to the products protected by that designation of origin, are not covered by that designation’. Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in its ruling of 18 July d2019<\/a>, concluded that the use of figurative signs on the labelling of a cheese related to La-Mancha region such as \u2018a drawing of a knight riding a bony horse, with the appearance that usually represents Don Quixote of La Mancha, who is in a field where there are also sheep and windmills” violated the DO Queso Manchego.<\/p>\n

ANFACO-CECOPESCA Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the case at hand, ANFACO-CECOPESCA raises an administrative appeal against the resolution of the Galician Institute of Consumer Affairs prohibiting the use of the expressions `de las R\u00edas Gallegas\u2019, \u2018Fabricado en Galicia\u2019 or \u2018Envasado en Galicia\u2019. ANFACO-COPESCA understands that the use of these expressions on mussels of Galician origin is legal and does not infringe the DO Mejill\u00f3n Gallego. Among other reasons, it argues that the DO only covers fresh mussels produced by the “batea” system and cannot be extended to canned mussels, as well as that the possible references to Galicia in the labelling of Galician mussels are prior to the emergence of the DO, that is to say, that we would be facing \u2018a traditional and deep-rooted use, protected by the traceability of the product used\u2019.<\/p>\n

The TSJ of Galicia confirms, in the first place, that the specification of the DO Mejill\u00f3n de Galicia protects both fresh and canned mussels and that therefore, no distinction should be made when determining the scope of protection of the DO.<\/p>\n

In addition, the TJS of Galicia analyses whether the use of mentions of \u2018Galicia\u2019 or terms that may evoke that territory would contradict the provisions of Article 13 of the European Union Regulation 1151\/2012<\/a>. It shall be remember that this article not only prohibits the unauthorised use of the DO, but also of expressions that imitate or evoke it, even preventing the use of expressions such as \u2018style\u2019, \u2018type\u2019, \u2018method\u2019, \u2018produced as in\u2019, \u2018imitation\u2019 or similar, even when these products are used as ingredients.\u00a0 Well, the TSJ of Galicia understands that the use of mentions such as, \u2018Produced in Galicia\u2019 or \u2018Packaged in Galicia\u2019 in the labelling of canned mussels would be a direct use of the protected DO by reproducing the term \u2018Galicia\u2019, since this is part of the DO Mejill\u00f3n de Galicia. With regard to \u2018de la R\u00edas Gallegas\u2019, the TSJ points out that this would also be forbidden.<\/p>\n

Taking into consideration the precedents analysed, the TSJ rules that the Administration Body was correct in concluding that the use of expressions in the labelling of canned mussels such as \u2018de las R\u00edas Gallegas\u201d, “produced in Galicia” or “packaged in Galicia” evokes the product protected by the DO Mejill\u00f3n de Galicia<\/strong>. It is taken into account that the size and placement of these expressions on the products have an advertising purpose and means a use of the reputation of a product protected by a DO. In other words, it is understood that the mention of the Galician origin of the mussel is not merely descriptive.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The DO, an often overlooked right, is gaining prominence on the national and international scene, moving towards giving increasingly extensive rights to regulatory boards to prohibit any use that not only reproduces the name, but simply evokes it, even when the product is related to the territory in question (see related articles here<\/a>). This is, without a doubt, a very valuable asset when it comes to giving uniqueness to the products manufactured in certain regions of Spain and to valuing both the quality of its raw materials and the excellence of its production processes. It is worth reflecting on how we can put them into good use.<\/p>\n

Beatriz Ganso<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Garrigues\u00a0Intellectual Property<\/a>\u00a0Department<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The use of Designations of Origin (DO) is of utmost importance to guarantee consumers that the products they are acquiring comply with specific quality standards and that come from a specific geographical origin. The doubt arises when producers intend to make similar or evocative, but not identical, use of the protected DO. How far can […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":10873,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[95],"tags":[715,716],"coauthors":[574],"class_list":["post-10879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property","tag-designations-of-origin","tag-propiedad-intelectual-en"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10879"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10879\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10880,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10879\/revisions\/10880"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10873"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10879"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogip.garrigues.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=10879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}