C-403/92

3. A central part of the original château building is now owned by Claire Lafforgue, who also owns three hectares of vineyards The background to the case originally belonging to the estate. Mrs Laf­ forgue and her brother François Baux, who are the plaintiffs in the main proceedings, produce a wine from those vineyards (also designated 'Côtes du Roussillon'), using for that purpose wine-making equipment situ­ ated in the château. It appears that parts of 2. The case arises from an event which took the château have also been acquired by the place more than a century ago. On 14 company SCI Château de Calce, which was August 1863, the owners of the estate known set up for that purpose by the second defen­ as the 'Château de Calce', at Calce-par- dant. That company is the first defendant in Rivesaltes in the Eastern Pyrenees region of the main proceedings. France, divided the estate and sold the result­ ing parts to 47 local villagers. The estate con­ sisted of a château, containing the original medieval manor-house of the estate, together with its surrounding vineyards. Those vine­ yards are still owned and cultivated by the successors in title to the villagers, and the wine they produce benefits from the appella- tion d'origine contrôlée 'Côtes du Roussil- 4. On 28 July 1986, the plaintiffs registered lon'. The producers have formed a coopera­ the name 'Château Lafforgue' with the tive association, the Société Coopérative de appropriate national authorities. It appears that, under French law, such a registration gives the proprietor of the name an exclusive * Original language: English. right to use the name to describe wine pro-

5. The Cour de Cassation considers that the 6. In what follows, I shall first set out the case raises issues of Community law, and has relevant Community provisions and then accordingly referred two questions for a pre­ turn to consider what answers should be liminary ruling. The questions are stated to given to the questions referred. relate to Article 5(1) of Commission Regula­ tion (EEC) No 997/81 1 and to 'any other

2 — It appears from the order for reference that the Cour de Cas­ sation refers, in particular, to Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/79 of 5 February 1979 laying down general rules for 1 — Commission Regulation (EEC) No 997/81 of 26 March 1981 the description and presentation of wines and grape musts laying down detailed rules for the description and presenta­ (OJ 1979 L 54, p . 99). The relevant provisions have been tion of wines and grape musts (OJ 1981 L 106, p. 1). It is to repealed and reenacted by Council Regulation (EEC) be noted that the relevant provisions have been repealed and No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 (OJ 1989 L 232, p . 13), amended reenacted by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3201/90 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3886/89 of 11 Decem­ of 16 October 1990 (OJ 1990 L 309, p . 1). ber 1989 (OJ 1989 L 378, p . 12).

I - 2964

BAUX

The Community provisions 8. Article 12(1) of Regulation No 355/79 specifies the information which must be included on the labelling of a quality wine psr. Article 12(2) provides that:

I - 2965

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-403/92

— or by a group of vineyards, 8 icle 5(1) of Regulation No 997/81, which provides that:

— or in an undertaking situated in the specified region indicated or in the immediate vicinity of that region, with which the vineyards where 'When describing a vineyard in which wine the grapes used were harvested are concerned was obtained in accordance with connected as members of a group of Articles 2(3)(g) and 12(2)(m) of Regulation vineyards, and which made wine (EEC) No 355/79, the terms: from the said grapes;

— "château", "domaine",

[and similar expressions in other Com­ munity languages]

'The terms referred to in Articles 2(3)(f) and 12(2)(q) ... shall be: 'The name of the vineyard or group of vine­ yards referred to in Article 28(2)(1) of Regu­ lation (EEC) No 355/79 shall appear in terms similar to those set out in paragraph 1.'

(b) for French wines: "mis en bouteille à la Thus Article 5(3) implements Article 28(2)(1) propriété", "mise d'origine", "mis en of Regulation No 355/79. The latter provi­ bouteille par les producteurs réunis" sion permits information on the labelling of and, when the conditions of Article 5 wines imported from third countries to hereof are satisfied, "mis en bouteille au include: château" or "mis en bouteille au domaine";

... .' 'the name of the vineyard or group of vine­ yards where the wine in question was made, where this is likely to enhance the reputation of the wine and in so far as such information is governed by provisions laid down by the third country of origin.' 11. Finally, it is to be noted that Ar­­ icle 43(1) of Regulation No 355/79 provides that:

It can be seen therefore that the wording of Article 28(2)(1) is closely similar to that of 'The description and presentation of the Articles 2(3)(g) and 12(2)(m). products ... must not be liable to cause con-

I - 2967

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-403/92

The submissions of the parties 15. For the defendants, on the other hand, a name containing the term 'château' can be used to describe a wine wherever the wine is produced from a single wine-growing hold­ ing. In that respect, the decisive criterion is whether the holding in question is under the control of a single economic entity. Since, in the defendants' view, a cooperative of wine 13. Written observations were submitted by producers must be regarded as such an the parties to the main proceedings as well as entity, the defendants would answer the first by the Commission and the French and Ital­ question referred with an unqualified 'yes'. ian Governments. With the exception of the Thus the term 'château' can be used to des­ Italian Government, all were present in addi­ ignate a wine produced by such a coopera­ tion for oral argument at the hearing. tive. In relation to the second question, the circumstance that some of the members of the cooperative may cultivate land which does not belong to the original estate of the 10 — The corresponding provision of Regulation No 2392/89, namely Article 40(1), is in similar but more elaborate terms. château does not, in the defendants' view,

I - 2968

BAUX

Consideration of the questions referred

17. The French Government submits that Community law does not prevent either a cooperative of wine producers or its individ­ ual members from using the term 'château'. The French Government points out that, under French law, an agricultural cooperative has a legal personality distinct from that of its members; a cooperative of wine-growers 19. In answering the questions referred, it is is accordingly more than simply a group of clearly important to distinguish matters different producers. On the other hand, a which pertain exclusively to national law cooperative cannot properly be regarded as a from those which raise issues of Community 'third party' in relation to its members, since law.

I - 2969

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-403/92

21. At least as regards wine produced by a single vineyard, Article 5(1) imposes essen­ tially two requirements: the wine must be made exclusively from grapes harvested from the vineyard concerned, and the wine- 22. It is clear, moreover, that no question making process must be carried out at the arises on the interpretation of the Trade 1 vineyard. As I have already observed, the Marks Directive. 2 Theplaintiffs refer in requirements apply equally to the use of the their written observations to Art­ expressions 'château' and 'domaine'. Addi­ icle 4(4)(c)(i) of the Directive, which provides tional criteria for the use of those expres­ that the registration of a trade mark may be sions may of course be laid down by the producer Member State, pursuant to Art­ icle 5(2)(a) of the regulation. Thus it might 11 — Case 56/80 [1981] ECR 583, paragraph 19. well be thought desirable, from the point of 12 — First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 view of the consumer, to require that wine to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

I - 2970

BAUX

refused, or revoked, to the extent that its use each of which is owned and cultivated by an is prohibited by virtue of an earlier right to a individual member of the cooperative. name. However, the implementation of that provision is optional for the Member States. It would in any event be for the national court to determine what rights in the name 'Château de Calce' subsisted prior to an application to register the name as a trade mark. 24. The question therefore arises whether a group of vineyards can be regarded as satis­ fying the conditions laid down by Art­ icle 5(1) for the use of the terms 'château' or 'domaine'. It is to be noted that, in contrast to several other provisions of the regulation, Article 5(1) does not refer expressly to groups of vineyards. Article 5(2)(c), on the other hand, provides that producer Member States may:

I - 2971

OPINION OF MR JACOBS — CASE C-403/92

recalled, furthermore, that both Article 5(1) the quality of the product; ... however, in and Article 5(2) implement Article 12(2)(m) view of the specific nature of certain of these of Regulation No 355/79, which refers to terms, Member States should be empowered 'the name of the vineyard or group of vine- to limit the options offered by Community yards where the quality wine psr in question legislation to the parties concerned.' 1 was made', 4 andthat Article 28(2)(1) con­ tains a parallel provision applying to wines 15 imported from third countries.

That recital appears to provide reasons for both Article 2(3) and Article 5(1) of the reg­ 25. In view of those provisions, Article 5(1) ulation. Article 2(3) contains a list of terms of Regulation No 997/81 can be interpreted (e.g. 'Grand cru classé', 'Cru bourgeois') as applying, at least in some circumstances, which may be used on the labelling of a to names which describe a group of vine­ quality wine psr; it implements Art­ yards, and not merely to a name describing a icle 12(2)(i) of Regulation No 355/79, which single vineyard. In giving such an extensive permits the use of 'additional details of a tra­ interpretation of Article 5(1), however, it is ditional kind, provided that they are used in important to bear in mind the objectives of the manner prescribed by the laws of the the provision. producer Member State and are entered in a list to be drawn up'.

the process of production has been under the 29. It is true that the 27th recital relates to control of an individual producer who is terms which concern the bottling of the concerned to maintain the quality and repu­ wine, rather than to terms descriptive only of tation of his product. Member States are the holding on which the wine was pro­ accordingly permitted to continue to allow duced. It therefore provides reasons for Art­ the use of such traditional expressions, pro­ icle 17(1) of the regulation rather than Art­ vided that the implication is not a misleading icle 5(1). It is clear, on the other hand, that one. those two provisions are closely related, and address essentially the same problem. Thus the information that a wine is bottled as described in Article 17(1) implies that not only the bottling but also the earlier stages of production have been carried out under the control of a single directing mind. It follows that a producer should not be permitted to 28. That interpretation of the objective use an expression such as 'mis en bouteille au pursued by Article 5(1) of Regulation château' unless that unified control can be No 977/81 is confirmed by the 27th recital guaranteed throughout the wine-making 17 of the regulation, which states that: process. By the terms of Article 17(1), the expression 'mis en bouteille au château' may be used where the requirements of Article 5 are satisfied in addition to the requirements relating to bottling; it appears to follow that Article 5 also must be interpreted in the light of the objective explained in the 27th recital. '... the information that a wine has been bot­ tled at the wine-growing holding where the grapes from which it was made were har­ vested and turned into wine, or under equiv­ alent conditions, expresses the idea that all the stages of production have been carried out under the supervision and responsibility of the same natural or legal person, thereby enhancing the prestige of the wine thus obtained in the estimation of some purchas­ ers; ... the terms which may be used to con­ vey such information should therefore be 18 specified.' 30. As regards the stages of production ante­ cedent to bottling, therefore, the use of the terms 'château' and 'domaine' will be subject to similar conditions to those which apply in 17 — This recital appears as the 26th recital in the English ver­ sion. the case of the expressions mentioned in 18 — It is to be noted that the term 'wine-growing holding' in Article 17(1). Indeed, the expressions 'châ­ that recital once more translates the French term 'exploita­ tion viticole', an expression which as we have seen is trans­ teau' and 'domaine' (and hence 'mis en lated in Article 5 by both 'vineyard' and 'wine-growing holding': see note 13 above. However, 'vineyard' and 'hold­ bouteille au château' and 'mis en bouteille au ing' are not always used as synonyms in the regulation: see domaine') may be subject to more stringent the expression 'vineyard belonging to the holding' in Arti­ cle 4(3). In that case 'vineyard' translates the French conditions than the other expressions men­ 'vignes', in the expression '(des) vignes faisant partie de l'exploitation viticole'. tioned in Article 17(1)(b), namely 'mis en

31. As I have already suggested, Article 5(1) of Regulation No 997/81 can be interpreted 32. I conclude that, for the term 'château' to as permitting the use of the terms 'château' be used to describe wine produced by a and 'domaine' not only in the case of a wine group of vineyards, three conditions must be produced by a single vineyard, but also in satisfied. First, the grapes from which the the case of a wine produced by a group of wine is made must be harvested exclusively vineyards. We have seen that such an inter­ from vineyards belonging to the designated pretation is supported both by the terms of estate. Secondly, the wine-making process Article 12(2)(m) of Regulation No 355/79, must take place at the premises of the group which Article 5(1) implements, and by the 21 or under equivalent conditions. Thirdly, the wording of Article 5(2) and (3). In con­ wine-making process must be carried out trast, however, it would seem that Art­ under the control of a single directing icle 5(1) cannot apply to cases where the wine authority, for instance the board of adminis­ is made, not by the group of vineyards from tration of a cooperative. If those conditions are fulfilled, it seems to me that the term 'château' can be used even where the lands of 19 — See paragraphs 8 to 10, above. the estate have been partitioned and now 20 — It will be recalled that in the last case the undertaking must also be situated 'in the specified region indicated or in the immediate vicinity' and must have made the wine from the grapes in question. 21 — See paragraph 24 above. 22 — Case 311/87 [1988] ECR 6295, paragraph 15.

33. I would add that the stages of the wine- 34. By its second question, the Cour de Cas­ making process which must be under the sation asks whether the application of Art­ control of a single directing authority are all icle 5(1) is affected by the circumstance that those from the stage of the pressing of the the producers concerned are members of a grapes. It might of course be desirable, from cooperative which also includes among its the point of view of quality control, if earlier members wine-growers who cultivate vine­ stages of production were also under the yards not forming part of the château estate. supervision of the authority concerned. However, the preamble to Council Regula­ 23 tion (EEC) No 3886/89, which amended, in the light of the judgment in Goldenes Rheinhessen, the provision currently in force corresponding to Article 12(2)(q) of Regula­ 24 tion No 355/79, refers only to the condi­ 35. In such a case there is clearly a danger tion that 'the various stages of production that wine made from grapes harvested from have been carried out, at least as from the the estate of the château might be mixed grape-pressing stage, under the control of the with wine made from other grapes. If that producer' (my emphasis). It appears there­ were to happen, the consumer of the wine fore that the 'stages of production' referred would evidently be misled, since the designa­ to in the 27th recital of Regulation tion of the wine as (for instance) 'Château de No 997/81 should not be interpreted as Calce' would no longer provide a guarantee including earlier stages such as the selection, 25 that the wine was made from grapes har­ cultivation and harvesting of the grapes. vested from lands of the château estate. That Nor, in my view, can such a requirement be danger will however be averted if reliable derived as a matter of Community law from procedures are put in place to ensure the any other source, in particular from the sixth 26 separate vinification of grapes harvested recital of the regulation, or from the word­ from the lands of the château. If that addi­ ing of Article 12(2)(m) of Regulation 27 tional condition is satisfied, I can see no No 355/79. Thus it is for national law to objection to the name 'Château de Calce' continuing to be used to describe wine made from the appropriate grapes. For, as long as 23 — Cited above in note 2. that wine is made separately from any other 24 — Namely Article 11(2)(q) of Regulation No 2392/89: see wines made at the same premises, the use of note 7 above. the name will not lead to any confusion as 25 — And similarly in the 28th recital of Regulation No 3201/90. The question whether the condition extends to the stages of regards the nature, origin and composition of the harvesting and cultivation of the grapes is discussed by Advocate General Mischo in paragraph 19 of his Opinion the product; thus the requirements of Art­ in Goldenes Rheinhessen (cited above in note 22). icle 43(1) of Regulation No 355/79 will be 26 — Cited in paragraph 26 above. fulfilled. 27 — Cited in paragraph 8 above.

(b) the wine-making process takes place at the premises of the cooperative or under equivalent conditions, and

(c) all stages of production, at least as from the grape-pressing stage, are under the supervision and control of a single responsible authority.

(2) However, if wine is also made on the same premises from grapes harvested from land which did not form part of the château estate, procedures must be put in place to ensure that those grapes are made into wine separately from grapes harvested from the estate, and that the wine described as coming from the château is not mixed with other wine.

I - 2976