Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 349 (Oct)
Court: Court of Justice of the European Communities (Second Chamber)
Judge:

Judges Schintgen (President), Skouris and Colneric (Rapporteur)

Judgment Dates: 24 October 2002

Catchwords

European Communities - Consumers - Consumer protection - Description and presentation of wines and grape musts - Council Regulation (EEC) 2392/89, art 40.

The Case

It was for the national court to assess whether a brand name might be misleading, taking into account the presumed expectations of an average consumer who was reasonably well informed, and reasonably observant and circumspect when assessing whether a brand name would be prohibited by art40 of Council Regulation(EEC) 2392-89 (laying down general rules for the description and presentation of wines and grape musts). Accordingly, in the instant case, the prohibition in art40 of the regulation would not apply on a simple finding that use of a brand name containing a geographical reference was in itself likely to give the impression that the reference was protected, whilst in reality it was not. It was necessary also to establish that there was a real risk of the economic behaviour of the consumers concerned being affected by use of the brand name.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.