DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN WITHIN THE EU: LEGAL CHALLENGES 61 5.2. Scholars’ Views The 1985 legislative initiative of the Galician region to apply the designation of origin status to ornamental stones was examined, before the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling, by Areán Lalín45, who stated: “We do not find, he claimed – back then – overwhelming grounds for blocking designations of origin for non-agricultural products”, since its characteristics “are exclusively or essentially due to natural factors o circumstances indigenous to the relevant country, region or place”. Areán Lalín cites, as an example, mineral waters, which are foodstuffs, and considers this as widely accepted. Moreover, “where there is no agreement” is “when it comes to whether designations of origin may cover industrial products, strictly speaking”. Professor Areán Lalín then merely states that the Galician law, in its article 1, “appears to claim that they should”, omitting any explicit elaboration on it. Years later – and after the Constitutional Court ruled on this Galician regulation –, Botana and Maroño showed their approval of this norm and thought it praiseworthy that the Court might have given the green light to the extension to the range of designations of origin. They affirmed, unreservedly and unconditionally, that “the designation of origin is a legal instrument apt to protect products other than agricultural and foodstuffs”, mentioning as possible “candidates” for that category specific “Spanish protected designations” in foreign countries under bilateral agreements: embroidery from Lagartera, leather products from Ubrique, carpets from Alpujarra, knives from Albacete and so on. Botana & Maroño concluded by saying that “no designation of origin yet may have recognised in our country for these products should not be a compelling argument for precluding future discussions along these lines”46. Botana and Maroño followed their own research paths through the works mentioned above; however, neither ever subscribed to such overarching concepts as those they had both held in 1991. Botana, in 2001, rejected the designation of origin status when applied to products to which he had recognised it earlier on (only mentioning Ubrique’s leather products)47. Moreover, when examining the Galician law, although Botana claims that “the absence of dogmatic obstacles to extending the designation of origin to products other than agricultural or food” are a condition for its approval, he refrains from praising 45 AREÁN LALÍN, M. (1985). op. cit., p. 576. 46 BOTANA AGRA, M. J. & MAROÑO GARGALLO, M. M. (1991). “Las piedras ornamentales como objeto protegible por denominación de origen (Comentario a la sentencia 211/1990, de 20 de diciembre, del Tribunal Constitucional”, Actas de Derecho Industrial y Derecho de Autor, no. 14, p. 208. 47 BOTANA AGRA, M. J. (2001). op. cit., p. 83.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==