## Facts

- “Parmigiano Reggiano” is a protected designation of origin (PDO) for hard cheese produced in a defined region of Italy under specified conditions.
- In Germany, producers and traders marketed hard cheeses, including grated/grating cheeses, labeled “Parmesan” that did not originate from the PDO region and did not comply with the PDO specification.
- The governing EU regime (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, art. 13(1)) required protection of registered PDOs against direct or indirect commercial use, and against misuse, imitation, or evocation, including use through translation.
- The European Commission asserted that “Parmesan” functioned as a translation and/or evocation of “Parmigiano Reggiano,” requiring German authorities to take effective measures against noncompliant uses.
- Germany argued that “Parmesan” was generic in its market for a type of hard cheese and therefore did not trigger PDO enforcement duties.
- After pre-litigation steps under then-Article 226 EC, the Commission brought an infringement action alleging Germany failed to fulfill its obligations to protect the PDO.

## Issues

1. Whether “Parmesan” is a generic term in Germany or instead a translation and/or “evocation” of the PDO “Parmigiano Reggiano” under Regulation 2081/92, art. 13(1).
2. Whether Germany failed to fulfill its obligations under Regulation 2081/92, art. 13(1) by not taking appropriate administrative or judicial measures to stop the marketing of noncompliant cheeses as “Parmesan.”

## Decision

- The Court held that, for hard cheese, “Parmesan” was not established as a generic name that removed it from PDO protection and must be treated as a translation and/or evocation of “Parmigiano Reggiano” within art. 13(1).
- The Court found that Germany failed to fulfill its obligations under art. 13(1) by not taking appropriate measures to prevent and end the misuse of “Parmesan” for cheeses not complying with the PDO specification.
- The Court declared an infringement and required Germany to bring the breach to an end; Germany was ordered to bear costs.

## Legal Principles

- Regulation 2081/92, art. 13(1) protects PDOs against direct/indirect commercial use and against misuse, imitation, or evocation, including where the protected name is translated or the true origin is indicated.
- “Evocation” exists where the contested term is sufficiently close conceptually and phonetically to call the protected designation to mind for the average consumer; proof of actual consumer deception is not required.
- Member States may not unilaterally treat a protected designation (or its protected foreign-language equivalent) as generic; genericness determinations must occur through the EU-level procedures established by the regulation.
- Member States have affirmative duties to implement effective administrative and judicial enforcement mechanisms to prevent and stop private-party infringements of protected designations on their territory.

## Conclusion

The Court determined that “Parmesan” evoked and translated the PDO “Parmigiano Reggiano” for hard cheese and that Germany breached its EU obligations by tolerating and failing to halt the use of “Parmesan” for noncompliant cheeses, reinforcing strong protection for PDOs and requiring active national enforcement.


Comm’n of the Eur. Cmtys. v. Ger., 2008 E.T.M.R. 32 (C.J.E.U. 2008)