EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DG AGRI Unit H2 L130 03 ... - Marques

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the Council and the European Parliament, once all procedural steps are completed,including a vote by the Parliament at the plenary session, the regulation regarding theagricultural product quality scheme will be adopted by the Council and the EuropeanParliament in the first reading (source: Official Press Release of the Council of theEuropean Union, 11863/12, Brussels 25 June 2012). It is further noted that a Debate andVote in the European Parliament are scheduled respectively on the 12 th and 13 thSeptember 2012.Unless otherwise specified, the present comments address the proposal as it wasoriginally published and relate to aspects which have not been affected by theamendments proposed by the Rapporteur of the European Parliament’s Agricultural andRural Development Committee. The present comments aim at supplementing thosesubmissions that were presented by MARQUES in response to the consultation thattook place in view of the preparation of the Quality Package proposals as designed toput in place a coherent agricultural product quality policy.1. Preliminary RemarksFirst of all, MARQUES would like to express its appreciation of certain aspects ofboth this proposal and other regulations concerning geographical indications whichhave entered into force in the meantime, in particular:the simplification of the system through the unification in a single regulation;the use of a same procedure for registering geographical indications/designationsof origin concerning certain products and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed(which we expect that it will only be a step to a more extended unification whichcomprehends all the products protected by PGIs and PDOs in the future,independently of their nature);the possibility of entering on to the EU register the designations of origin andgeographical indications protected via international agreements to which the EUis party, as their non-inclusion causes uncertainty; andthe point of view of the EU that existing rules concerning the continued use ofnames that are generic should be clarified to the effect that generic terms whichare similar to or form part of a protected or reserved name or term should retainsuch generic status.However, in MARQUES’ opinion, there are other aspects of the proposal that ought tobe reconsidered.2
2. Specific comments2.1. New definition (Article 5)The proposed new definition significantly expands the definition of designations oforigin and geographical indications, which fact increases the scope of potential conflictbetween trademarks and geographical indications and would dilute the commercialvalue of geographical indications and, in particular, of designations of origin.The current regulation limits the protection of both a designation of origin and ageographical indication to "the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptionalcases, a country used to describe an agricultural product or a foodstuff (…)" (as well astraditional terms).Conversely, the new proposal would introduce a much wider definition based on whichit is defined as eligible a "name which identifies a product originating in a specificplace, region or, in exceptional cases, a country" (with further requirements concerninga link between the qualities of the product and the area).MARQUES believes that the above proposed change in the definition would- make the scope of the system less predictable- remove it further from its original rationale- blur the line between trademarks and geographical indications (for example,consumers may associate a trademark with the place of the seat of the trademark owner,but that does not convert a trademark into a geographical indication)- expand the possible conflict zone between trademarks and geographical indications.By broadening the definitions, significantly more designations could qualify forprotection under the regulation. This would lead to a dilution of the commercial value ofexisting geographical indications and, in particular, of designations of origin. In thefuture, it may be difficult - if not even impossible - for a consumer to associate anyvalue to the qualification of a designation as a PGI or PDO. In MARQUES’ view, inoverstretching the scheme by allowing too many designations, the system would beoverall weakened.It is noted that a broader definition had also been discussed in the course of thelegislative process that led to the adoption of Regulation 510/06 and that eventually, thedefinition of Regulation 2081/92 was maintained with some adaptations. Accordingly,MARQUES would recommend maintaining the definition of Regulation 510/06 ratherthan expanding it further.3
Page 1: EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DG AGRIUnit H
Page 5 and 6: product marketed under the register
Page 7 and 8: 2.8.- Protected termsMARQUES consid
Page 9 and 10: follow the practice already adopted

EUROPEAN COMMISSION - DG AGRI Unit H2 L130 03 ... - Marques

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?