However, the Commission may base its assessment on that previously carried out by the national authorities if the latter is not vitiated by a manifest error 157. At the stage within its competence, therefore, the Commission initially carries out a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application for registration, covering both its formal completeness and its substance, which has the same range as that previously carried out by the requesting State158. If this step is passed, the application is publicised at European level, thus opening up the space for possible challenges before the Commission, which can be brought – without limitation to their scope – either by other States, or by those who have not been able to bring a national action159, provided the existence of a “legitimate interest” in the action160. Opposition may be based on two issues, to be assessed with reference to the entire territory of the Union: the lack of requirements in the product to obtain protection as a TSG or the fact that the registration would jeopardise the existence of products having a totally or partially identical name161. In the absence of objections, the Commission accepts the application and grants protection to the TSG name162. In their presence, if there is no amicable settlement, the Commission must instead take them into account and reassess the situation. If, during the opposition phase at the Union level, it is shown that the name, which is the object of the protection request, is also used in another Member State or in a third country, the Commission may decide to grant protection, but by introducing a remedy to distinguish the TSG from comparable products or products that share an identical or similar name. This remedy consists in placing alongside the name of the TSG the words “made following the tradition of”, immediately followed by the indication of a country or region thereof163. 157 Court of Justice, judgments of 6 December 2001, Carl Kühne and Others, C-269/99, EU:C:2001:659, paragraph 60, and of 2 July 2009, Bavaria and Bavaria Italia, C-343/07, EU:C:2009:415, paragraphs 90, 93 and 99. 158 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 59. 159 Reg. (EU) No. 2024/1143, cited above, art. 61, as well as Reg. (EU) No. 26/2025, cit., art. 10. In doctrine: M. Mauro, La legittima a proporre opposizione alle richieste di registrazione di una DOP o IGP o modifica del disciplinare: il concetto europeo di interesse legittimo, in Riv. dir. alim., 4, 2022, p.58. 160 Court of Justice, judgment of 15 April 2012, Spreewälder Gurken (PGI), Case C-53/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:279, according to which a “legitimate interest” exists where the granting of an application for protection for a geographical term (but the situation is similar in the case of the name of a product to be protected as a TSG) or for the amendment of a specification may entail a risk of harm to the applicant’s interests, arising from the fact that the application is not merely improbable or hypothetical, a circumstance that must be verified by the referring court. 161 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 62. 162 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 64. 163 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, art. 53(3). 355 FOODSTUFF TRADITION PROTECTION
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==