Skip to content
  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 3 results.

Protection of EU Geographical Indications in Ukraine journal article

EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and Other Available Tools

Kateryna Oliinyk, Mariia Baranovych, Maryna Akhtimirova

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 3, Page 241 - 249

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is one of the tools to protect EU geographical indications in Ukraine (inter alia, geographical indications for wines, foodstuffs and agricultural products, such as Champagne, Cognac, Madeira, Jeres, Marsala, Tokaj, Feta, Roquefort, Parmigiano Reggiano, etc.). The Agreement secures the protection of geographical indications without the procedure for registration of the qualified indications of origin indicating specific geographical place from which goods originate as provided for by the Law of Ukraine “On the Protection of Rights to Indication of Origin of Goods”. Even if currently certain geographical indications protected in the EU are not covered by the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, there are other efficient tools to protect them in Ukraine, including applications to the Ukrainian Competition Authority (the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine).


The Exhaustive Character of the EU Regulation on Geographical Indications of Wines following the European Court of Justice Judgment Port Charlotte II. journal article

Vito Rubino

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 2, Page 134 - 141

This comment on the Port Charlotte II judgment of 14 September 2017 analyses the position taken by the Court of Justice with regard to the convergence of wine Common Market Organisation (CMO) and the EU Regulations related to the protection of geographical names of other foodstuffs. The Court, starting from some elements of the 2009 BUD II judgment, outlines the same exhaustive character in all the European regulations regarding the matter. On this basis the Court holds irrelevant the previous Portuguese protection of the name “Port- Porto” in order to evaluate the existence of an “earlier right” which could preclude the registration of the trademark Port Charlotte. In this sense the judgment sets aside the previous evaluations of the General Court in 2015, which had reached a different decision. The article analyses the consequences of the Court’s systematic approach to the matter highlighting the elements of the CMO regulation that are not in line with this judgment with specific reference to the competences of the Member States in this field. The comment concludes, therefore, with two different considerations: 1) the EU Commission must take into account this judgment in the ambit of the new regulation of execution of the Single CMO related to wines (which is being done at the present time and will replace EU Regulation No. 607/2009); 2) in the context described it is urgent to re-think the structure of GIs protection in the European Union, limiting the European protection to the best known denominations and products, and leaving the Member States an independent power to protect geographical indications and traditional mentions of other foodstuffs (whose reputation is well known only at a local level).


From “Cambozola” to “Toscoro” journal article

The Difficult Distinction between “Evocation” of a Protected Geographical Indication, “Product Affinity” and Misleading Commercial Practices

Vito Rubino

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 4, Page 326 - 334

This article analyses the developments in the EU case-law on the notion of “evocation” of a geographical indication protected by the European Union in order to precisely define the elements of this particular case, distinguish it from the so-called “product affinity” and misleading conduct of juxtaposition and confusion as to the origin and identity of products, as well as analysing the boundary between “evocation” and “indirect comparative advertising” in the context of a market with increasing competition between PDO/PGI products and similar generic products.

  • «
  • 1
  • »