Yves van Couter, Aude Mahy, Florence d’Ath

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 11 (2016), Issue 4, Page 328 - 332

On 10 March 2015, the Court of Appeals of Brussels reached its decision in a case involving a dispute between the dairy industry and a producer of substitutes for dairy products regarding the use of the words “milk”, “yogurt”, “cream” or “dairy” for presenting or advertising non-dairy products, such as almond milk or soya drinks. It reaffirmed that these generic names of dairy products are protected and are exclusively reserved for the dairy products in question. Products, therefore, which do not meet the specific legal requirements and characteristics described by these names may not, in principle, be labelled as “milk”, butter”, ”cream” or “yogurt”. In its judgement, the Court of Appeals did not, however, clarify whether the use of these reserved names for non-dairy products is prohibited in all circumstances, or whether they can sometimes be used in order to distinguish non-dairy products from milk products. Instead, the Court adhered close to the general principles of consumer protection and held that, in the circumstances at hand, the defendant’s use of these reserved names could mislead consumers as to the nature or composition of the non-dairy products.

Yves van Couter, Florence d’Ath

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 11 (2016), Issue 4, Page 290 - 308

The geographical origin of food products is often associated with quality. Protecting and preventing the misuse of these indications is therefore important for both consumers and businesses. In the EU, two systems provide intellectual property tools to that end: the system of registered geographical names (PGI/PDO) and the system of the collective European Union trade mark (EUTM). This article explores and compares the specificities of each system.