The designation “Black Forest ham” has been a protected geographical indication (PGI) since 1997. To be allowed to use this name, a ham must have been smoked in the Black Forest. As ham is sold less and less in one piece these days, the Black Forest Ham Producers’ Association wanted to specify the protected geographical indication. The slicing and packaging of the ham should also only be allowed to take place in the Black Forest.

Producers of Black Forest ham start legal dispute

Several objections were lodged against this planned change to the specification in 2005. These included one from a large meat producer that smokes its ham in the Black Forest but cuts and packs it in Lower Saxony. What followed was a series of judges’ rulings. They all expressed different opinions on the matter.

In 2011, the Federal Patent Court in Munich initially ruled in favor of the Protective Association of Black Forest Ham Producers. The main reason given was that controls outside the production area in the Black Forest would offer fewer guarantees for the quality and authenticity of the product. Local controls under the responsibility of the holder of the protected geographical indication were therefore generally preferable.

ECJ: Restrictions must be necessary and proportionate

An appeal was lodged against this decision, which is why the case reached the European Court of Justice in 2018. The Court initially found that such a restrictive specification could be justified in principle. However, only if itis“a necessary and proportionate means of preserving the quality of the product or guaranteeing its origin or the control of the specification for the protected geographical indication“. Whether this also applies to the protected geographical indication “Schwarzwälder Schinken” should then be clarified by the German courts.

BGH: Black Forest ham from Lower Saxony possible

The Federal Court of Justice has now commented on the matter accordingly. In its decision of September 3, 2020 (case no. I ZB 72/19), it found that the intended cutting and packaging of the ham in the region of origin was not necessary to ensure the quality of the ham covered by the protected geographical indication “Schwarzwälder Schinken”. No product-specific expertise was required for these processes, which is why the cutting and packaging could also be effectively controlled elsewhere.

Ham may therefore be called “Black Forest ham” even if it was not cut and packaged in the Black Forest, but elsewhere. A 16-year dispute over the geographical indication has thus come to an end. If such an indication is to be changed, it may well be worth questioning the reasoning of those arguing for it.