Gepubliceerd op maandag 10 januari 2011
IEF 9323
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

"Gebrouwen in ons eigen Brabant"

HvJ EU, 22 december 2010, zaak C-120/08, Bayerischer Brauerbund eV tegen Bavaria NV (prejudiciële Bundesgerichtshof, Duitsland).

Merkenrecht. Geografische aanduidingen. De verwijzende rechter wenst in wezen te vernemen hoe bij conflict tussen de beschermde geografische aanduiding (BGA) en het merk te bepalen of de BGA „Bayerisches Bier” voorrang in de tijd heeft op het merk van Bavaria met het gevolg dat de bescherming van dat merk kan worden ingetrokken. De inschrijving (met voorrang) van een van de internationale merken van Bavaria valt precies tussen de indiening van de aanvraag en de bekendmaking van de BGA „Bayerisches Bier”. Het Hof concludeert dat de oude verordening van toepassing is en dat onder die verordening, en in dit geval, niet de aanvraag maar de ‘inwerkingtreding van de registratie’ (de publicatie van de registratie) de doorslag geeft en dat Bavaria dus aan het langste eind trekt.

58. The reference date referred to in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 is the date of the publication provided for in Article 6(2) of that regulation, whereas such publication did not exist under the simplified procedure. It is necessary therefore to establish the relevant reference date in the case of a conflict involving a name registered as a PGI in accordance with that procedure.

64. Given that national protection for the names to be registered in accordance with the simplified procedure was maintained until the date of registration, to establish the date of the entry into force of that registration as the reference date for those names for the purposes of the protection granted by Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 is consistent with the general scheme of the system introduced by that regulation.

65. Moreover, as emerges from Regulation No 1347/2001, concerning the PGI at issue in the main proceedings, the publication of the registration also includes the date of the entry into force of that registration and therefore satisfies the requirements of legal certainty.

66. It must therefore be held that, in the case of names registered in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92, the entry into force of the registration satisfies both the objectives of the reference date provided for in Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92 and the general scheme of that regulation.

67. That date therefore constitutes the reference date for the purposes of resolving, under Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92, a conflict involving a name registered as a PGI in accordance with the simplified procedure.

On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs is applicable for resolving the conflict between a name validly registered as a protected geographical indication in accordance with the simplified procedure under Article 17 of that regulation and a trade mark corresponding to one of the situations referred to in Article 13 of that regulation relating to the same type of product, the application for registration of which was submitted both before the registration of that name and before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 692/2003 of 8 April 2003 amending Regulation No 2081/92. The date of the entry into force of the registration of that name constitutes the reference date for the purposes of Article 14(1) of Regulation No 2081/92.

Lees het arrest hier (beschikbaar in alle talen behalve het Nederlands).