In so ruling, the Court censured the practice of the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). On the ground of a (false) «non-rebuttable presumption» that the PDO’s reputation was not exploited92, EUIPO wrongly allowed the registration of European trade marks with reference to expressions that also contained the full name of a PDO, provided that the relevant claim was strictly limited to products complying with the relevant specifications93 (registrations that would otherwise have been rejected, not in themselves, but in the presence of prejudice to the protection attributed to geographical indications)94. This EUIPO’s wrong practice was justified by referring to the rule95 according to which anyone, who manufactures a product in accordance with the specifications of a given geographical indication, has the right to use it: according to EUIPO, this would also have automatically entailed the inclusion of that geographical term in a European trade mark owned by anyone who respects the product specifications. Anyway, when the said «presumption» is not rebutted, it becomes lawful to incorporate a geographical indication into an individual trademark, that belongs to a specific entity, who can use it within the aforementioned limits96. This situation raises some concerns, as it appears to conflict with the collective nature of the right to geographical indications97. In the final analysis: does the use of the collective right to a geographical name also include its incorporation within an industrial property right of a purely individual nature, provided that the product specification is respected and the PDO’s reputation is not exploited? Or does permitting such incorporation constitute in itself a violation of the fundamental right to property protected by the Nice Charter98, perpetrated to the detriment of all other PDO co-owners? 92 EU General Court, judgement of 25 June 2025, case T-239/23, Nero Champagne, cited above, point 47: «the Board of Appeal applied the ‘limitation theory’ as a non-rebuttable presumption that the reputation of a PDO was not exploited, when the mark applied for covered only products complying with the specification of the PDO and related services». 93 EUIPO, Guidelines on EU Trade Marks, adopted by the Executive Director on 28 March 2024 (Decision No EX-24-2) and entered into force on 31 March 2024, p. 680, point 5.3: “According to Article 36 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, GIs may be used by any operator marketing a product that complies with the corresponding product specification. Objections raised due to conflicts with GIs may be waived if the relevant goods are restricted so as to comply with the specifications of the GI in question”. 94 EUIPO, Guidelines on EU trade marks, cit. p. 648, para. 4. 95 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, Art. 36. 96 This ruling acquires the differences between appellations of origin that are actually notorious (where proof of their exploitation seems easily attainable) and those that are scarcely known to consumers (where said proof seems arduous instead). 97 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, recital 18: “Geographical indications are a collective right held by all eligible producers in a designated area willing to adhere to a product specification”. 98 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art. 17. 345 FOODSTUFF TRADITION PROTECTION
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==