The Gazette 1975

Court of Justice such a question as has been raised herein, even though the national Court is not com- pelled to do so under the said article" should also be referred. Whitford J. on 14 December 1973 declined to refer question (a) at the then stage of the proceedings, being unconvinced that it was a question which could only be answered in the light of a ruling given by the European Court; and so far as question (b) was con- cerned the judge did not consider it necessary to refer the question at all for the purpose of enabling him to give a judgment. The defendants appealed on the grounds that the Judge had misdirected himself in the exercise of his discretion under Article 177 of the Treaty and R.S.C., Ord. 114, and that such part of his judgment was wrong and ought to be set aside. Judgment was delivered in the Court of Appeal on 22 May, 1974 — (1974) 2 All ER 276.

force at the relevant time; and (2) a declaration that they were entitled to use the expression "champagne perry" on and in relation to perry, provided that such use was not contrary to any government regulation in force at the relevant time. A statement of claim and an amended statement of claim were served in November 1970 and July 1971. By their original defence and counterclaim the defendants denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations asked for, claiming that in the United Kingdom "champagne" meant the naturally sparkling wine produced in the Champagne district of France by the defendants and those whom they represented, and no other wine; and that the use of the word "champagne" in connection with any beverage other than champagne was likely to lead to the belief that such beverage was a substitute for or had the character of champagne; and they claimed injunctions restraining the plaintiffs from using in the course of trade the word "champagne" in connection with any beverage not being a wine produced in the Champagne district of France in such manner as to be likely to lead to the belief that such beverage was connected with champagne. On 26 March 1973 after the United Kingdom had become a member of the European Economic Commu- nity and, under the European Communities Act, 1972, which came into force on 1 January 1973, the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (known as the Treaty of Rome) became part of English law, the defendants amended their defence to add by paragraph 9a the claim : "following the adherence of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community the use of the word 'champagne' in connection with any beverage other than champagne will contravene European Community law" and stated that they would rely on the provisions of European Community law viz. (i) Regulation (EEC) No. 816/70 (dated 28 April 1970) of the Council of European Communities—Article 30; and (ii) Regulation (EEC) No. 817/70 (dated 28 April 1970) of the Council of European Communities—Articles 12 and 13. By a further amendment they counterclaimed for a declar- ation that the use by the plaintiffs of the expressions "champagne cider" and "champagne perry" in relation to beverages other than wine produced in the Cham- pagne district of France was contrary to Community law. In November 1973 the defendants gave notice of motion in the Chancery Division asking for an order that the question (a): "Whether upon the true interpretation of the regula- tions particularised or any other relevant provisions of European Community law the use of the word 'cham- pagne' in connection with any beverage other than champagne is a contravention of the said regulations or other provisions of European community law 1 ' should be referred for a preliminary ruling in accord- ance with Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to the Court of Justice of the European Communities at Luxembourg and that all further proceedings in the action be stayed until the Court of Justice had given its ruling on the question or until further order; and by a further notice of motion then asked that question (b) : "Whether on the true interpretation of Article 177 of the Treaty a national Court of a Member State should, where there is no earlier decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, refer to the

THE HALF-YEARLY MEETING

OF THE LAW SOCIETY

will be held in

WESTPORT, CO. MAYO

from

9th-11th May, 1975

Programme of Lectures will be anounced subsequently.

13