## Facts

- Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 created EU protection for geographical indications and designations of origin (PDOs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and also allowed protection of certain traditional, non‑geographical names connected with a region (Arts. 2(1) and 2(3)).
- Article 3(1) of Regulation 2081/92 barred registration where the requested name had become the common name (generic name) of the product in the Community.
- After re-examining the file, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2002 registering “feta” as a PDO for cheese produced in specified areas of Greece under a product specification (including the use of sheep’s milk or a mixture of sheep’s and goat’s milk and defined methods).
- By the time of registration, cheese sold as “feta” had long been lawfully produced and marketed in several Member States outside Greece, including Denmark and Germany.
- Germany and Denmark brought actions for annulment (then Article 230 EC) seeking partial annulment of Regulation 1829/2002 insofar as it registered “feta” as a PDO.
- The applicants argued, in substance, that “feta” had become generic in the internal market and that the Commission’s assessment of market conditions and consumer understanding was legally flawed and factually wrong.
- The Commission defended the regulation, relying on material gathered during its examination (including market and consumption data, information about use of the term in different Member States, and material on the term’s historical and linguistic association with Greek production).
- The Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) joined the actions and issued a single judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission unlawfully registered “feta” as a PDO under Regulation 2081/92 because the name had become generic within the meaning of Article 3(1).
2. Whether, given evidence of lawful production and marketing of “feta” outside Greece, the Commission committed a manifest error in concluding that the name still identified a product associated, for EU consumers, with Greek origin and tradition.

## Decision

- The Court dismissed Germany’s and Denmark’s actions for annulment and upheld Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2002 registering “feta” as a PDO.
- The Court held that the Commission did not commit a manifest error in finding that “feta” had not become a generic name in the Community within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2081/92.
- The Court accepted that production and sales outside Greece were relevant to the Article 3(1) inquiry, but found they did not require the Commission to treat the name as generic when weighed against the record taken as a whole.
- The Court applied a restrained review standard for Commission determinations that depend on technical and economic assessment, limiting review to compliance with procedure, adequate reasons, and absence of manifest error or misuse of powers.

## Legal Principles

- Under Regulation 2081/92, a name cannot be registered if it has become the common name of the product in the Community (genericness under Article 3(1)).
- The genericness analysis is made at the level of the Community as a whole; conditions in one or more Member States are relevant but not alone decisive.
- In assessing genericness, EU institutions may consider the situation in Member States (including consumer understanding and market usage) and the legal framework and practices governing naming and marketing.
- A traditional name that is not itself a place name may still qualify for protection under Article 2(3) when it designates a product tied to a geographical area through established production and reputation.
- Where the Commission must evaluate economic and social information in implementing agricultural and food-quality schemes, it enjoys discretion; judicial review tests for manifest error, misuse of powers, and compliance with procedural and reasoning duties.
- The fact that producers outside the claimed origin have long used the term does not, by itself, make the term generic for EU law purposes if the overall EU assessment supports continued association of the name with the claimed origin.

## Conclusion

Germany and Denmark sought to annul the Commission regulation granting PDO protection to “feta” on the ground that the name had become generic in the EU. The Court of Justice rejected the challenge, holding that the Commission acted within its discretion and did not make a manifest error in concluding—based on an EU-wide appraisal of the record—that “feta” had not become the common name of the product in the Community and could therefore remain registered as a Greek PDO.


Germany and Denmark v. Commission, 2006 E.T.M.R. 200 (2005)