164 WINE LAW In correlation with this prescription, the text itself, in the chapter dedicated to the regulation of the inspection and sanctioning regime, considers as a very serious infringement something that had already become customary in agri-food legislation, by establishing that “the absence on the labels and presentation of PDO and PGI agri-food products of sufficient elements to clearly differentiate their qualification and origin, in order to avoid causing confusion among consumers, derived from the use of the same trademark, trade name or company name in the marketing of such products corresponding to different PDOs and PGIs or coming from different geographical areas” [art. 32(1)(h)]. In the development of these prescriptions, Royal Decree 267/2017, of 17 March, which implements Law 6/2015, of 12 May, on Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications of supra-autonomic territorial scope, and which implements Law 12/2013, of 2 August, on measures to improve the functioning of the food chain, includes, in Chapter VIII (Other provisions of Law 6/2015, of 12 May), new rules, including that relating to the communication of commercial labels (art. 13). Paragraph 2 of this article states that, “In the case of use of the same brand or presentation on products covered by one or more supra-autonomic PDOs or PGIs and on products not covered by them, operators shall submit all the labels and designs to the management body of the supra-autonomic PDOs or PGIs. The latter will send them, together with its observations, to the Directorate-General for the Food Industry, which will check, by comparing labels, formats or other elements of presentation of the product covered and not covered by the supra-autonomous PDO or PGI that share a commercial brand, whether there are sufficient elements to clearly differentiate their classification and origin, in order to avoid causing confusion among consumers. The Directorate-General for the Food Industry shall issue a report on the matter within one month”19. Consequently, subsequent regional regulations20 also include similar references to co-branding in their regulation. In Asturias, for instance, Law 2/2019, of 1 March, on food quality, differentiated quality and direct sale of food products has established the prohibition “to require operators of a given geographical quality designation to use brands exclusively for the products of that designation. In any case, the designation and presentation of the products of that operator shall contain sufficient identifying elements to avoid misleading or confusing the consumer” [art. 17(7)]. 19 On the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the “Reports of “shared-use brands” relating to compliance with article 13(2) of Royal Decree 267/2017 (reports of labels in which the deficiency of sufficient differentiating elements has not been observed)” are published, clarifying that “these reports are merely informative and not exhaustive” (2017, 2018 and first half of 2019), available in https://www.mapa.gob.es/en/alimentacion/temas/calidad-diferenciada/marcas-comerciales/. 20 In the Community of Catalonia, however, Law 2/2020, of 5 March, on viticulture, in article 55(1)(c), only contemplates the use of co-branding in the catalogue of infringements, considering it as a very serious infringement, “the failure to indicate on the labelling and presentation of wines sufficient elements to clearly differentiate their qualification and origin, in order to avoid consumer confusion, derived from the use of the same brand, trade name or company name in the marketing of wines corresponding to different levels of protection or coming from different geographical areas”.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==