EU COURT TOSSES OUT ITALIAN APPEAL FOR WINE NAMES, BUT TOP ITALIAN NAMES, FROM BRUNELLO TO NOBILE DI MONTEPULCIANO TO AMARONE, ARE SAFEGUARDING THEMSELVES BY TRADE MARKING THEIR NAMES

The Court of Justice of the European Communities recently tossed out an appeal presented by Italy against the European Commission requesting the partial annulment of EU norms on designation, presentation, and protection of winemaking products in regards to the protection of traditional names. This is the second ruling by the EU Court on this delicate matter. On July 13, 2005, European judges had declared inadmissible the appeal presented by Federdoc (National Confederation of Volunteer Associations for the Safeguarding of Original Denominations and Geographic Indications of Italian Wines).

”Frankly, it is inexplicable how the EU could design such a masochistic politic for the winemaking sector, not only introducing enological practices that are foreign to our traditions, like using ‘chips’, but also undermining the heart of its legislative foundation represented by the safeguarding of denominations”, stated Marco Caprai, the most important producer of Sagrantino di Montefalco.

But the EU decision has not caught the most important Italian winemaking consortiums unawares. They have long been pragmatically moving towards registering as trademarks their brand names. “The latest decision of the EU does not surprise us, “ noted Stefano Campatelli, director of the Brunello di Montalcino Consortium. “We have registered the Brunello name in the most important markets around the world, precisely to avoid the risks that could be hidden behind the EU’s uncertainties. It is a costly but inevitable path”.

Paolo Solini, director of the Vino Nobile di Montepulciano Consortium, echoes Campatelli’s remarks stating, “unfortunately this is further confirmation that the EU has recently taken on a politic that does not safeguard quality products, at least those in the wine sector. I find it unusual that institutional representatives cannot comprehend the enormous damage that this decision has and will cause. The Vino Nobile Consortium has run to shelter itself by registering its traditional denominations ‘Vino Nobile’ and ‘Vino Nobile di Montepulciano’ as if they were a collective name brand”.

And, again the same response from the Consortium to Safeguard Volpolicella Wine, whose director, Emilio Fasoletti added, “it was already a lost battle and an inevitability the registering of names as the only way to prevent nasty surprises for the traditional name Amarone. As well, we are proceeding to register Ripasso and Recioto”.

The regulations that were pronounced by the EU Court, which Italy could present an appeal to, regard the norms instated on February 20, 2004 (CEE 316/2004) in which the European Commission offers third party countries (with specific conditions) the possibility of using some of the most coveted traditional names of European wines. Names like Brunello and Amarone, for example, are traditional terms used to designate quality wines, production and ageing methods, and so on. With the modifications resulting from the 2004 regulation changes made to the 2002 EU law, the two existing categories of traditional names was consolidated into one. Therefore, European wines have all been moved under one title, even the 17 Italian denominations that had been super-protected in the special second category.

In support of its appeal against the reforms, the Italian government stated four fundamental motives: procedural vices and the lack of effective cross-examinations; violation of base regulations and Council conclusions on wine issues based on bilateral agreements; violation of the principles of proportionality and diversion of power; violation of binding international norms. The Court, however, did not accept Italy’s criticisms and refused its appeal. The modifications of the 2004 European regulations on traditional wine denominations have provoked a decisive reaction from the entire Italian wine sector. Brussels defends itself by maintaining that the conditions imposed on third party countries for the use of traditional denominations are guarantee enough against eventual abuses.