About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX009-j

Back

High Court of Singapore (General Division) [2023]: Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2023] SGHC 77

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 3: Emerging Issues in Geographical Indications

 

High Court of Singapore (General Division) [2023]: Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano [2023] SGHC 77

 

Date of judgment: March 31, 2023

Issuing authority: High Court of Singapore (General Division)

Level of the issuing authority: First judicial instance [on appeal from an administrative decision]

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>

Subject matter: Geographical Indications

Appellant: Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd

Respondent: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano

Keywords: Geographical indications, Translation of a geographical indication, Scope of protection

 

Basic facts: The appeal turns on the question of whether “Parmesan” is a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano.”

 

The Geographical Indications Act 2014 (GIA) accords protection to all registered geographical indications, including the geographical indication “Parmigiano Reggiano” owned by Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano (“the Respondent”) for cheese.  This protection extends to any unauthorized use of a geographical indication in translation.  Third parties may, however, submit a request to qualify the scope of such protection from extending to specific terms on the basis that such terms are not translations of the geographical indication in question.  Fonterra Brands (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“the Appellant”) submitted such a request with respect to the Respondent’s geographical indication, asserting that the term “Parmesan” is not a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano.”  The Respondent opposed the request.

 

The Principal Assistant Registrar (PAR) found in favor of the Respondent – i.e., that “Parmesan” is a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano” and should therefore be accorded protection under the GIA.  The Appellant appeals against the PAR’s decision.

 

Held: The High Court held that the Respondent had met its burden of proving that “Parmesan” is a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano” and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to emerging issues in geographical indications: Regarding whether a faithful or a strict literal approach to translation should be taken in the context of the GIA, the High Court found no reason to disagree with the PAR that a faithful translation should be preferred in the determination of whether a purported translation is the result of a conversion of the geographical indication from one language to another.  A faithful translation captures the essence of the word or phrase in question.  Because geographical indications serve to establish a link between the quality of a product and its geographical origin, a faithful translation ensures that the meanings within these geographical indications—which allow them to fulfill their function—are retained within the purported translations.

 

Regarding the evidence relevant to the translation inquiry, the High Court held that consumer perception is generally irrelevant to the question of whether a term is a translation of a geographical indication under the GIA, save to the extent where such perception is reflected in extracts taken from reputable dictionaries.  Because section 46(2)(b) of the GIA focuses on the protection of translations of geographical indications, as long as a term is found to be a faithful translation of a registered geographical indication, it generally does not matter what consumers within the marketplace perceive the words to refer to, provided the term does not amount to the generic or common name for the good or service in question.

 

Finally, on the question of whether sufficient evidence had been adduced to prove that “Parmesan” is a translation of “Parmigiano Reggiano,” the High Court found that the Respondent had fulfilled its burden in proving that “Parmesan” is a translation of the geographical indication “Parmigiano Reggiano” for the purposes of section 46(2)(b) read with section 46(1)(b) of the GIA.  The various reputable dictionaries demonstrate that the Italian term “Parmigiano Reggiano,” which has assimilated into common parlance in the countries around Italy, is understood to bear the same meaning as the word “Parmesan” in English and in French.  The dictionaries also reveal that the terms “Parmesan,” “Parmigiano” and “Parmigiano Reggiano” are generally used interchangeably to refer to cheese hailing from the same regions in Italy.

                                                                                      

Relevant legislation:

Geographical Indications Act 2014 (Act 19 of 2014)