Judgment no. 2955/2025, published on 9 October, partially overturned the first instance decision of the Venice Court itself, which had instead upheld Brazzale’s arguments, finding that the term “Grana” had become generic. On that basis, the court had rejected the claims brought by the Consortium for the Protection of Grana Padano, which had raised concerns about the risk of deception and consumer confusion caused by Brazzale’s conduct, including its description of its cheese as “a cheese of the Grana family, a product of the Italian tradition of the highest quality”.
The Consortium’s arguments rested on several key points:
- Brazzale’s product is not made using milk from the protected geographical area and does not comply with the Product Specification; the raw material comes from the Czech Republic, specifically from the Moravian region;
- the company systematically associated its cheese with Grana Padano PDO, describing its product as “Grana” on multiple occasions, thereby improperly exploiting the commercial value of the protected name for advertising and descriptive purposes; on those same occasions, company representatives linked the reference to “Grana” with the Italian tradition associated with the production of grana-type cheese;
- on this issue, the Court confirmed the correctness of the first instance ruling, which devoted almost two pages to analysing the expert opinion produced by Brazzale and concluded that there is, in fact, no evidence that the term “grana” has become generic, as it remains closely connected to the territorial origin of the product;
- the contested conduct is capable of misleading consumers and, above all, constitutes an evocation of the PDO that the Consortium is tasked with protecting and defending.
The decision is particularly significant because it recognises the non-generic nature of a term such as “Grana”, which forms part of the protected designation of origin and, even when used independently, deserves protection against evocative, usurping and/or appropriative conduct by third parties not entitled to use the PDO.
Under EU Regulation No. 1151/2012, the protection afforded to PDOs extends both to the full name “GRANA PADANO” and to its most distinctive element, “Grana”. This means that any use of the word “GRANA” must be truthful, accurate, and consistent with its nature as a PDO.
The judgment states:
“There has never been, for the so-called ‘grana and that’s it’, generically understood, since the term ‘grana’ itself is inextricably linked to the dairy tradition of the Po Valley. For this reason, the legislator, in establishing a PDO to protect these products, expressly specified their origin: thus the historical ‘grana’ cheeses have been defined, as a whole, as ‘Padani’ and are now all included within the framework of CP_4 […] governed by CP_1.
It is therefore necessary to confirm what was held by the first-instance judge, namely that the term ‘grana’ has an inherent territorial connotation, is not generic, and constitutes an integral element of the PDO, subject to autonomous protection.”
It is clear that the legal action pursued by the Grana Padano Consortium is closely linked to the broader issue of protecting “Made in Italy”, where the value of a PDO product is inseparably tied to the Italian territory and to historically established production methods.
This case also offers a valuable opportunity to reflect on the importance of the system of designations of origin and geographical indications in the agri-food sector, particularly in a country such as Italy, one of the richest and most fertile territories in terms of high-quality products, and among the leading exporters of excellence worldwide.
This is further confirmed by the prestigious recognition granted to Italian cuisine on 10 December 2025 by UNESCO, which declared it an intangible cultural heritage of humanity. This achievement is unprecedented, as it concerns an entire national culinary tradition, rather than individual traditional specialties, dishes, or recipes.
The protection of Made in Italy is thus strengthened by an additional instrument, operating in harmony with the PDO and PGI protection system.
What is reprehensible is not only the unlawful use of a PDO, but also any conduct that exploits, for promotional and commercial purposes, the reputation, quality, and guarantee represented by PDOs to describe products that do not comply with the relevant production specifications established by the Protection Consortia.
Developing this reasoning, the Court of Appeal observed that the requirement of genericity under the Regulation presupposes that the name in question has become “the common name of a product in the Union”, and not merely within the territory of production. In practical terms, this means that a hard grating cheese may be produced anywhere in the world following the procedure set out in the production specification, but such a product cannot be recognised or marketed to consumers as “grana”.
A particularly noteworthy passage of the judgment clearly identifies the rationale underpinning the PDO and PGI system:
“It is evident that the system of protected designations and indications exists precisely because, upstream, there are operators who exploit terms that consumers associate with high-quality products, even though their own products do not meet the production criteria required to guarantee that level of quality and, for that reason, have not been included in the specification.”
Thus, while the PDO is protected as such, the ruling also reinforces the essential function of the entire PDO/PGI system: safeguarding consumers against the risk of being misled in their purchasing decisions.
By contrast, evocation was excluded in a 2012 decision of the Turin Court involving the same Grana Padano Consortium and Caseificio Fiandino S.r.l., producer of the cheese marketed as “GRAN RISERVA ITALIA”.
In that case, the court held that the mere use of the term “GRAN” did not amount to an evocation of “GRANA”, both because it functioned as a simple adjective modifying the generic noun “RISERVA”, and because it is itself a generic term in the Italian language and therefore freely usable.
While it is true that evocation may also consist in reproducing part of a protected name, it is nevertheless necessary to carefully assess the threshold beyond which evocation arises. To that end, the judge considered decisive an analysis of the literal meaning of the terms under scrutiny, “GRAN” and “RISERVA”, which are generic product descriptors whose use is lawful under Article 13(1) of EU Regulation No. 1151/2012.
The comparative approach adopted allows one to appreciate the dynamism of the PDO and PGI regulatory framework, also shaped by judicial interpretation, which seeks to balance the protection of the exclusive rights vested in protection consortia with a rational approach aimed at safeguarding consumers and fair competition in the market.
For many years, our team has been supporting producer consortia and associations in protecting Italian excellence, as an integral part of our culture and tradition, now also recognised worldwide, by UNESCO, as an intangible cultural heritage.
