Wildfish Conservation & Animal Equality v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

[2025] UKFTT 58 (GRC)

https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2025000421/2025ukftt58grc_TNA/html

Advocates for Animals acted for Animal Equality in a First-Tier Tribunal appeal against the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (‘DEFRA’). The case concerned an appeal against DEFRA's decision to approve an application for a non-minor amendment to the product specification for a Protected Geographical Indication (“PGI”) related to Scottish Farmed Salmon.

Facts

On 20 July 2023, DEFRA decided to approve an application made by Salmon Scotland Ltd for a non-minor amendment to the product specification for a Protected Geographical Indication (“PGI”) related to Scottish Farmed Salmon (submitted under Article 53(1) of the Assimilated EU Regulation 1151/2012). A geographical indication is a protection for food, drink, and agricultural products with geographical connections, or that are made using traditional methods, that can be registered and protected as intellectual property. The amendment sought to change the PGI name from “Scottish Farmed Salmon” to "Scottish Salmon”. 

The two appellants Wildfish and Animal Equality filed notices of opposition and reasoned statements of opposition to this amendment application. DEFRA declared the reasoned statements of opposition inadmissible and approved the amendment on 3 April 2024. 

The two appellants challenged DEFRA’s approval decision before the First-tier Tribunal (FtT), which is tasked with hearing appeals against certain decisions made by DEFRA under the relevant legislative scheme..

Law

Assimilated EU Regulation 1151/2012 concerning geographical indications (assimilated by virtue of post-Brexit the Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment etc.)(EU Exit) Regulations (S.I. 2020/1637)).  

Article 6(2) states that ‘a name may not be registered as a designation of origin or geographical indication where it conflicts with a name of a plant variety or an animal breed and is likely to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product.’

Article 51 deals with the issue of standing to object to an application for a non-minor amendment to a GI, the process for doing so, and the consequences thereafter. 

Article 51(1) states that a natural or legal person having a ‘legitimate interest’ may lodge a ‘notice of opposition’ with DEFRA within three months of the date of publication of that application. If a notice of opposition does not contain a declaration that the application might infringe the conditions laid down elsewhere in the Assimilated Regulation, it is void. 

The Claim

The Tribunal was required to consider, among other issues, its jurisdiction to hear the appeals, the appellants’ legitimate interest in opposing the amendment, and the substantive compliance of the amendment with Article 6(2). 

The appellants asserted a legitimate interest in protecting consumers of Scottish salmon, emphasizing consumer protection and informed choice as objectives of the Assimilated Regulation. 

The appellants also contended that the amendment breaches Article 6(2) of the Assimilated Regulation, which prohibits registration of names that conflict with the name of an animal breed, and are likely to mislead consumers as to the product’s true origin. This is because ‘farmed salmon’ constitutes an animal breed distinct from wild salmon, and that removing ‘farmed’ from the PGI name creates a conflict with this breed name, likely misleading consumers. 

The appellants also contend that ‘true origin’ should be interpreted broadly to include essential characteristics of the product, such as being farmed, not merely geographical origin. They criticise the removal of ‘farmed’ as diluting the specificity of the PGI and potentially misleading consumers about production steps and product characteristics. 

The Defence 

The respondent DEFRA argued that ‘legitimate interest’ requires an economic interest, limiting standing to producers rather than consumer advocates. 

The respondent also contended that the term ‘conflicts’ in Article 6(2) means identity or near identity, and since ‘Scottish Salmon’ is not identical to the breed name ‘farmed salmon’, no conflict exists.

The respondent interpreted ‘true origin’ as referencing solely to geographical origin, asserting that ‘Scottish Salmon’ correctly identifies the product’s geographic origin, and thus consumers are not misled. DEFRA argued that labelling rules will ensure consumers are informed that the salmon is farmed, mitigating any risk of confusion.

The respondent maintained that the appellants’ reasoned statements of opposition were inadmissible and that there is no right to appeal such a determination.

The Decision 

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants’ appeals against DEFRA's decision to approve the non-minor amendment to the PGI, changing the name from ‘Scottish Farmed Salmon’ to ‘Scottish Salmon’. The Tribunal confirmed that both appellants had legitimate interests and that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeals, but found no breach of Article 6(2) of the Assimilated Regulation. 

Standing

The Tribunal rejected the respondent DEFRA’s narrow interpretation that only persons with an economic interest (i.e. producers) have standing. They relied on the purposive approach and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s  reasoning in Hengsteinberg GmbH & Co. KG v Spreewaldvereinev (C-53/20), and held that legitimate interests include a broader range of persons, including those with consumer protection interests. Both appellants, being charities advocating for consumer and environmental interests related to salmon products, were found to satisfy the threshold for legitimate interest. They noted that the threshold for legitimate interest is not demanding and that the legislative intent was to allow a wide range of persons to oppose amendments to PGIs. They accepted that both appellants were entitled to, and did, lodge a notice of opposition, and that FtT has the jurisdiction to determine both appellants’ appeals. 

The amendment 

Regarding the substantive issue under Article 6(2), the Tribunal identified two connected requirements: first, whether the proposed GI name conflicts with the name of an animal breed; second, whether the name is likely to mislead consumers as to the true origin of the product. 

The Tribunal found that ‘farmed salmon’ constitutes an animal breed as agreed by both parties, and ‘Scottish Salmon’ is sufficiently similar to the breed ‘farmed salmon’ to require a full inquiry into the likelihood of consumer confusion. 

On the second limb, the Tribunal also interpreted ‘true origin’ purposively as meaning true geographical origin only, consistent with the definition of geographical indications and the product specification requirements. The appellants did not contend that the amended PGI would mislead consumers about geographical origin, and the Tribunal agreed that the amendment does not mislead consumers in this respect. 

The Tribunal also rejected the appellants’ broader arguments that removing ‘farmed’ undermines the product’s essential characteristics or production steps, finding that the production specification and geographical nexus requirements remains satisfied. 

Finally, the Tribunal noted that there is no right to appeal DEFRA’s decision to treat reasoned statements of opposition as inadmissible, and that the appeal before it only concerns DEFRA’s approval of the amendment application. 

Commentary 

The decision clarifies the interpretation of legitimate interest and the application of Article 6(2).

The Tribunal found that the term ‘legitimate interest’ should be interpreted widely, and in particular, that it is not restricted to those who have a legitimate economic interest in the examination of an PGI amendment application.

Regarding the substantive issue under Article 6(2), the Tribunal identified two requirements: first, whether the proposed GI name conflicts with the name of an animal breed; second, whether the name is likely to mislead consumers as to the true origin of the product. The second limb relating to ‘true origin’ means true geographical origin only.

The current ruling has significant implications for animal law advocates seeking transparency in food chain production. The Tribunal held that the ‘true origin’ requirement in Article 6(2) means true geographical origin only, which meant that producers in this case can remove the word ‘farmed’ from the initial product specification ‘Scottish farmed salmon’ without misleading consumers as to its geographical origin. It creates greater barriers for consumers who wish to make more ethical and informed consumer choices based on the method of production. 

Advocates for Animals is due to appeal this decision in May on behalf of Animal Equality. It is represented by Alex Shattock of Landmark Chambers. 

Getting advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com.