90 WINE LAW equitable manner and, on the other, avoid misleading the consumer. In case C-347/03 Tocai friulano35, for instance, the EU’s Court of Justice held that the coexistence of homonymous names of wine under the above conditions36 is only possible where each of the names constitutes a geographical indication: as the Italian names “Tocai friulano” and “Tocai italic” were not a Protected Geographical Indication, priority was given to the Hungarian name “Tokaj”, which was protected as such. 4. CUSTOMARY NAMES OF GRAPE VARIETIES IN WINE LABELLING 4.1. International agreements Varietal wines are often referred to by the customary names of grape varieties from which they are produced. However, the international legal framework does not offer a single answer to whether such customary names should be treated as generic names for wine or whether they can be protected as geographical indications, leaving the determination of this issue to individual countries. Article 24(6) TRIPS allows WTO Members to treat customary names of grape varieties as generic names for wine. Nevertheless, they are not required to apply the TRIPS provisions in respect of a geographical indication of any other WTO Member for products of the vine that is identical with the customary name of a grape variety existing in their territory. The same approach is evident from the Agreed Statement contained in Article 12 of the Geneva Act: the statement by the signatories of the Geneva Act clarifies that provisions on the protection against becoming generic do not apply where, prior to its international registration, the geographical indication has already become a generic name in a specific country. Examples of such prior use are where the geographical indication is identical with a term customary in common language as the common name of a good or service or is identical with the customary name of a grape variety in the country. This means that customary names of grape varieties can still be considered as generic names of varietal wines where such use of the term is customary in common language. Conversely, Article 4 of the Madrid Agreement expressly excludes “regional appellations 35 Judgment of the Court of 12 May 2005, Tocai friulano, case C-347/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:285. 36 The Court’s decision was based on equivalent rules contained in the EC-Hungary Association Agreement.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==