It follows that simple geographical indications are protected solely against deceptive uses, in accordance with the provisions on unfair competition (Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code), whereas signs of the first two categories are protected from any use of identical or similar signs that is likely to cause confusion and/or parasitic linking, pursuant to Articles 29 and 30 of the Italian Industrial Property Code. Indeed, these provisions have extended the scope of application of the protection rules, which were initially established solely within the agri-food sector and aimed at promoting quality agriculture. Therefore, the conclusion is that, with regard to agriculture, a predominantly comprehensive system prevails within the EU Member States, which, while maintaining certain commitments towards third countries arising from preexisting international agreements - be they bilateral or multilateral - centralizes the recognition of protected designations of origin and geographical indications and provides adequate protection for typical products3. 3 Regarding this point, see M. GIUFFRIDA, “Signs of Protected Foodstuffs: PDO, PGI, and STG,” in DIGESTO delle Discipline Privatistiche - Civil Law Section - Update, XI, directed by R. Sacco, p. 437, who states: “The choice made by the Community legislator to establish two distinct levels of geographical reference, as explicitly named in the recitals preceding the text—namely ‘protected geographical indications’ and ‘protected designations of origin’—was prompted by considerations regarding the differing intensity of the territorial link emerging from national regulations governing the acquisition of the designation. In light of these premises, the Community legislator, in Regulation 2081/1992, defined the PDOs (Protected Designations of Origin) and PGIs (Protected Geographical Indications) and regulated the procedures for their registration as well as the level of protection guaranteed. Despite the detailed and articulated Community regulation, numerous disputes were initiated before the Court of Justice, particularly concerning the role of certain elements characterizing the production process of products protected by PDO and PGI designations, which, together with other factors, contributed to the amendment of Regulation 2081/92 through Regulation No. 692/2003. As stated in the recitals preceding the text, the reasons underlying this amendment are of various nature. First, the exclusion of viticultural products and spirit beverages from the scope of Regulation CEE No. 2081/92 resulted in a lack of protection for wine vinegar, which was consequently included. Additionally, to meet the needs of certain producers, Annex I to the regulation was supplemented, and the list contained in Annex II of Regulation CEE No. 2081/92 was expanded. Conversely, natural mineral waters and spring waters were excluded from the scope because the examination of registration applications revealed multiple issues—causing practical conflicts—related to the existence of identical names for different waters, the existence of fanciful names not covered by the provisions of the regulation, and the fact that such names were not suitable for registration under this regulation, especially considering the effects of the protection established (art. 13). It was also noted that, in some cases, to preserve the typical characteristics of the products or to ensure traceability or control, conditioning had to take place within the defined geographical area. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to explicitly provide for the possibility of including this phase of production among the indications that are part of the product specification, which—as will be seen—explicitly sets out the characteristic elements of each individual PDO and PGI, effectively forming a sort of contractual regulation of their contents. To safeguard the patrimony of producers from Member States, it was considered appropriate to adequately resolve cases of entirely or partially homonymous geographical names, both for names conforming to registration criteria and for those that, despite not conforming to such criteria, meet certain specifically established conditions of use. It was also deemed appropriate to adapt the reference to standard EN 45011 (art. 10), concerning the requirements that private control bodies must meet, in order to allow for possible subsequent modifications and the cancellation of the designation from the Community register when, for duly justified reasons, an association or an individual or legal entity wishes to renounce the respective registration.” 379 PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL SPECIALTY GUARANTEED (TSG) IN THE EU
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==