Court of Venice ascertains that use of the words “Balsamico di…” and “Ristretto di Balsamico…”, alone or together with “aceto”, for condiments is a breach of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food labelling and of Italian regulation on vinegar (Law No 238/2016) and constitutes an act of unfair competition pursuant to Article 2598 ff. of the Italian Civil Code.

Background

Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena (hereinafter the “Consorzio”) initiated proceedings before the Court of Venice against two companies selling bulk condiments consisting of a blend of raw materials (the “Condiments”). The Condiments were sold under the names:

1. “Aceto Balsamico di…” (in English: “Balsamic Vinegar of…”); 
2. “Balsamico di…” (in English: “Balsamic of…”); and 
3. “Ristretto di Balsamico…” (in English: “Balsamic Reduction…”) 

The Consorzio challenged the defendants’ use of the above terms on the following three main grounds: 

1. The Consorzio challenged the use of the term “Balsamico” for the Condiments as an unlawful evocation of the PGI Aceto Balsamico di Modena in breach of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 [recently repealed by Regulation (EU) 2024/1143[1]].
    
2. The Consorzio asked the Court to ascertain whether the use of the term “Balsamico” in the labelling and advertising of the Condiments violated Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers and, as such, constituted an act of unfair competition pursuant to Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code. The Consorzio argued that the word “Balsamico” erroneously suggested that the Condiments had balsamic effects or that they had the nature, qualities and/or characteristics of Aceto Balsamico di Modena PGI and/or that they had the latter among their ingredients. 
    
3. The Consorzio asked the Court to ascertain whether the use of the word “aceto” (in English: “vinegar”), in the labelling, presentation and advertising of condiments constitutes a violation of Italian Law No 238/2016 which reserves the use of this term to products “obtained exclusively by acetous fermentation of alcoholic or sugary liquids of agricultural origin”.

The Court of Venice’s Decision

By decision of 19 December 2023, which became final, despite rejecting the Consorzio’s claim based on the evocation of the PGI, the Court held that:

1. Use of the expressions “Balsamico di…” and “Ristretto di Balsamico…” in the labelling of the Condiments was in breach of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 as such expressions were neither clear, nor easily understandable for consumers. 
   
   Under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, the name of the food shall be: 
   (i) its legal name; or 
   (ii) in the absence of a legal name, its customary name (i.e., the name which is accepted as the name of the food by consumers); or 
   (iii) if there is no customary name or the customary name is not used, a descriptive name of such food that is sufficiently clear to enable consumers to know its true nature and distinguish it from other products.
    
2. The use of the legal name “aceto” for products which are not vinegar, but are instead a blend of raw materials, is unlawful and constitutes an unfair practice under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (which does not allow, among other things, the improper use of legal names).
    
3. The violation of the above rules is relevant as an act of unfair competition by way of breach of the principles of professional integrity. As a consequence, the Court enjoined the defendants against the use of “aceto”, as well as against the use of “Balsamico di…” and “Ristretto di Balsamico…”, whether alone or in combination with “aceto”, in the labelling, presentation and advertising of the Condiments.

The Court, among other things, also established a penalty for any future violation of the injunction orders and ordered the defendants to compensate the Consorzio for damages suffered as a result of the finding of unfair competition. 

Reflection

Although the conclusions reached by the Court of Venice on evocation of the PGI Aceto Balsamico di Modena remain questionable, this decision is very interesting because it clarifies that – regardless of the violation of the PGI – violations of other EU rules on food labelling constitute acts of unfair competition to the extent that they prevent consumers from making informed purchase choices and prevent effective competition among operators. 

This decision is also important because it recognises the possibility for Consortia entrusted with the protection of PGIs/PDOs to exploit a further “instrument”, i.e. to claim violation of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and/or of Italian Law No 238/2016 on wine and vinegar against operators who use misleading expressions in the labelling, advertising and presentation of their products. 

[1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products, as well as traditional specialities guaranteed and optional quality terms for agricultural products, repealed Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and entered into force on 13 May 2024.