No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
On 26 February 2014, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter, BGH) held, in the case Hipp v. Milupa, that trademarks can be health claims under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (hereinafter the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, NHCR). The BGH, therefore, confirmed the broad interpretation of the term ‘health claim’ and remanded the case back to the Frankfurt/Main Higher Regional Court (hereinafter, OLG Frankfurt). Products bearing trademarks that existed before 1 January 2005 and that do not comply with the NHCR may continue to be marketed until 19 January 2022. On 15 January 2015, the OLG Frankfurt handed down a new judgment in the proceedings between Hipp and Milupa, relating to the question as to whether a trademark had to be used with the identical and unchanged food product before January 2005 to fall under the transitional rule, or whether changes to the product were permissible.
1 Judgment of the BGH of 26 February 2014, I ZR 178/12.
2 Judgment of the OLG Frankfurt of 15 January 2015, 6 U 67/11.
3 In German, this is called the ‘Kopplungsprinzip’, i.e., the coupling principle.
4 OJ 2012 L 136/1.
5 Judgment of the Court of 6 September 2012. Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesverwaltungsgericht – Germany. Case C-544/10, European Court Reports 2012.
6 Supra, paragraph 34.
7 Judgment of the Court of 18 July 2013. Green – Swan Pharmaceuticals CR, a.s. v Státní zemědělská a potravinářská inspekce, ústřední inspektorát. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Nejvyšší správní soud - Czech Republic. Case C-299/12. European Court Reports 2013.
8 Supra, at paragraph 37.
9 Leonie Evans, Recent Judgments on the Health Claims Regulation: A Journey through the Colourful World of Health Claims Made on Food Stopping at Luxembourg and Karlsruhe, European Food and Feed Law Review (2014), p. 233 (237); Florence Verhoestraete, The Court of Justice of the European Union Confirms the Obvious and Clarifies the Trade Marks and brand names derogation, European Food and Feed Law Review (2013), p. 338 (342 et seq.).
10 Guidance on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 14 December 2007. Available on the Internet at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/docs/labelling_nutrition_claim_reg-2006-124_guidance_en.pdf (last accessed on 6 May 2015).
11 Judgment of the OLG Frankfurt of 15 January 2015, 6 U 67/11, marginals 35-37.
12 Fundamental importance is a requirement for a revision under § 543 para. 2 no. 1 of the German Civil Process Code (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO).
13 OJ 2013 L 251/7. See also: Blanca Salas, “Specific Rules on Derogations for Generic Descriptors under the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation Entered into Force”, European Journal of Risk Regulation Issue 1/2014, March 2014.
14 Application for Probiotics as Generic Descriptors. Available on the Internet at: http://www.ylfa.org/images/file/YLFA-pr-release-probiotics.pdf (last accessed on 6 May 2015).
15 Rafter, Michael, Trademarks That Make Health and Nutrition Claims Under US and EU Food-Labeling Regulations, 15 March 2013, Vol. 68 No. 6 INTA Bulletin.Google Scholar