Acceso usuarios
José Manuel Cortés Martín 
Aunque los típicos problemas que surgen en Derecho de la Competencia a propósito de los contratos de explotación de los derechos de propiedad industrial no suelen plantearse con respecto a las DOP e IGP debido fundamentalmente a la imposibilidad de otorgar licencias de explotación, no es descartable que estas restricciones puedan surgir también en este ámbito. Sin embargo, su tipología revestirá características diferentes a las de los demás derechos de propiedad industrial, enmarcándose la mayoría de las veces en los acuerdos adoptados por el titular colectivo de la DOP e IGP. Aunque algunos autores han intentado justificar estas restricciones en la excepción agrícola establecida en el artículo 42 TFUE, creemos que este marco jurídico es insuficiente para justificar estas restricciones. Desde nuestro punto de vista, es necesario tener en cuenta la naturaleza jurídica de las DOP e IGP como auténticos derechos de propiedad industrial, debiendo seguirse el mismo razonamiento que desarrolla el TJUE cuando trata las restricciones a la competencia provocadas por estos derechos. De esta jurisprudencia puede extraerse que las decisiones del titular sobre la sustancia del derecho no pueden considerarse acuerdos restrictivos de la competencia al enmarcarse dentro de su objeto específico. De esta doctrina podemos deducir en relación con las DOP e IGP que sólo si las decisiones del titular colectivo van más allá de lo estrictamente necesario para preservar la reputación del producto deben considerarse prohibidas por el Tratado. Por el contrario, debe considerarse que no infringen estas disposiciones si las especificaciones se enmarcan en el objeto específico del derecho de propiedad industrial al ir dirigidas a salvaguardar la reputación del producto siempre que no constituyan un medio de adaptar la oferta a la demanda para evitar las perturbaciones del mercado. Entre estas conductas pueden incluirse la reivindicación del uso exclusivo contra empresas no instaladas en la zona geográfica de producción y/o transformación del producto, el embotellado, envasado, rayado o corte en la zona de producción; el uso obligatorio de una determinada presentación del producto; la aceptación de controles para comprobar que cada producto reúne realmente las características prescritas o la limitación de los rendimientos por hectárea para preservar la calidad.
Although far less common than other intellectual property rights, restrictions of competition based on protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI) could still exist. It is true that due mainly to the inability to grant licenses in the case of these singular rights restrictions of competition are uncommon. However, these restrictions will offer different features from those which are customary in the case of other intellectual property rights, framing themselves most often in the agreements of the producer group. Some authors have attempted to justify these restrictions of competition on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 42 TFEU. In this framework, the new Regulation (EU) nº 1308/2013 develops this exception reviewing the relationship between CAP and Competition Policy. In particular, qualified exemptions from the antitrust prohibition are provided for by article 169-171 of Regulation 1308/2013 for the sectors of olive oil, beef and veal, and certain arable crops. This is possible inasmuch as recognized producers’ organisations pursuing the objectives of concentrating supply, optimizing production costs or placing their members’ products on the market are allowed to negotiate on behalf of the associated undertakings as regards the supply of all or part of the latter’s aggregate production provided these associations never pursue establishing identical prices but concentrate supply, market production of its members or optimize production costs. As well, it establishes that Article 101(1) TFEU shall not apply to agreements, decisions and concerted practices of interbranch organisations recognised provided that they don’t lead to the partitioning of markets within the Union in any form; may affect the sound operation of the market organisation; may create distortions of competition which are not essential to achieving the objectives of the CAP pursued by the interbranch organisation activity;
entail the fixing of prices or the fixing of quotas; may create discrimination or eliminate competition in respect of a substantial proportion of the products in question. Despite the novelty represented by this Regulation, we believe that this legal framework is not enough to justify the peculiarities of PDO and PGI. In my view, it is necessary to consider their legal nature as genuine intellectual property rights. As a result, the same reasoning developed by the ECJ when dealing with restrictions on Competition Law caused by these rights should be followed. From this Case-Law, it could be deduced that decisions on the substance of the intellectual property right cannot be considered restrictive agreements if they were able be framed on the intellectual property right subject-matter.
Applying this ECJ doctrine to PDO and PGI, it could be deduced that only if decisions of the producers group went beyond what is necessary to preserve the product reputation, agreements, decisions and concerted practices could be considered prohibited by Article 101(1) TFEU. Conversely, if they are not a mean of avoiding competition but are really designed to safeguard the PDO and PGI reputation - such as the claim of exclusive use against companies not established in the geographical area, the need to make the operations of bottling, packaging, scratched or cutting of the product in the production area; the mandatory use of a particular presentation, the need of developing quality controls to ensure that every product really meets the prescribed characteristics or the limits yield per hectare to preserve quality product - they should not be considered an infringement of the Treaty provisions on Competition Law.
