Judgment_paragraph 36 · Verbraucherschutzverein eV v Sektkellerei G.C. Kessler GmbH und Co. (C-303/97)

36As the Court has frequently held in relation to provisions similar to those in Article 13 of Regulation No 2333/92, designed to prevent any deception of consumers and contained in a number of secondary legislative measures either of general application or sectoral in scope, it is for the national court to assess whether an appellation, brand name or advertising statement may be misleading (see, in particular, Case 94/82 De Kikvorsch [1983] ECR 947; C-313/94 Graffione v Fransa [1996] ECR I-6039; Case C-373/90 X [1992] ECR I-131, paragraphs 15 and 16, and Case C-210/96 Gut Springenheide and Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor Steinfurt [1998] ECR p. I-4657). In this case, it is for the national court to assess in the light of the circumstances whether, bearing in mind the consumers to whom it is addressed, a brand name or its component parts are liable to be confused with all or part of the description of certain wines. In that respect, it is also apparent from the Court's case-law that the national court must take into account the presumed expectations of an average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (Gut Spńngenheide and Tusky, cited above, paragraphs 31 and 32).

Verbraucherschutzverein eV v Sektkellerei G.C. Kessler GmbH und Co. (C-303/97)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections