Tribunal dismisses appeals against Scottish salmon GI amendment

Introduction

The First-tier Tribunal's General Regulatory Chamber recently handed down a decision in the case of WildFish Conservation and Animal Equality vs Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The case revolved around the approval of a non-minor amendment to the geographical indication (GI) for Scottish salmon, a decision made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Background

The appellants, WildFish Conservation and Animal Equality, challenged DEFRA's decision to approve an amendment application submitted by Salmon Scotland Ltd. This application sought to change the name of the Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) from 'Scottish Farmed Salmon' to 'Scottish Salmon'. The appellants argued that this change could mislead consumers and was not in compliance with the relevant regulations.

Geographical Indications

Geographical indications are a form of intellectual property that protect the names of products which have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation due to that origin. The UK GI schemes safeguard registered product names when sold in Great Britain.

The Appeals

The appellants contended that the amendment would lead to consumer confusion and was contrary to Article 6(2) of the Assimilated Regulation, which prohibits registration of a name that conflicts with a plant variety or animal breed and is likely to mislead consumers about the product's true origin.

Tribunal's Analysis

The Tribunal considered whether the term 'Scottish Salmon' conflicted with any animal breed names and whether it would mislead consumers. It concluded that while 'farmed salmon' is a breed, the name 'Scottish Salmon' did not conflict with this breed in a way that would mislead consumers about the product's geographical origin.

Decision

The Tribunal determined that the core function of a GI is to indicate geographical origin, not necessarily the method of production. The name 'Scottish Salmon' accurately reflects the product's geographical origin, and the Tribunal found no evidence that it would mislead consumers.

Conclusion

The appeals were dismissed, affirming DEFRA's decision to approve the non-minor amendment. The Tribunal's decision highlights the emphasis on geographical origin in GI regulations and clarifies the interpretation of 'true origin' in this context.

Learn More

For more information on geographical indications and their legal implications, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.