Also, it was always my understanding that a PDO only/just forbids selling a good under a protected name/title, from another origin.
I never expected that to include/extend to the production process, let alone for personal use. I thought these regulations were all about commercial trade, to protect local producers against (supposedly unfair) outside competition. I don't really see how demonstrating a production process harms that.
In fact, considering the PDO protection local producers enjoy, it might just as well be argued that there is no need for any ban on the production of the same goods elsewhere, since those can already not be sold because of the PDO.
Did I just misunderstood the PDO doctrine, or is this just overreach (if not abuse) of it?
A case of wanted to have their cheese and it it too?
That is, assuming this recourse was (legally) valid in the first place. I'm not sure of that.
I have no more than a laymen's understanding of these rules, but I at least expect that they apply to commercial entities (businesses) and not private individuals. This is an important distinction, which these days is often ignored/overlooked by many. Probably not in the least become so many people actually run (freelance) businesses as individuals, more often than not bordering on illegality, if not actually (unenforced) illegally. Much of that depends on national/local laws though.
Maybe the plaintiff does see it as YouTube being a business, or the person making these videos doing this professionally (if there's any money being made from the videos, it sort of is), but neither of those two business are (professionally) producing the protected product in question (let alone commercially sell it).
If the PDO regulations actually allow/warrant this action, then I'd argue that this goes way beyond the original intent and mandate of this PDO doctrine. Sadly, it would not be a first for an idea being (politically) adopted and then substantially changed/extended before being implemented into actual law/regulation. But with the (at best questionable) culture of lobbying going around in Brussels, that can hardly come as a surprise.
Maybe the lawmakers who voted in favor of this doctrine should be asked if this is what they actually voted for. It might just annoy them, being "harassed" (if not insulted) with such "unimportant incidents", but that might be just what is needed here. If this is unforeseen/unintended (ab)use of these regulations, it is most likely to stop
when lawmakers get annoyed/pissed off and demand some kind of public statement, saying that this is not what is supposed to happen under this doctrine.
I never expected that to include/extend to the production process, let alone for personal use. I thought these regulations were all about commercial trade, to protect local producers against (supposedly unfair) outside competition. I don't really see how demonstrating a production process harms that.
In fact, considering the PDO protection local producers enjoy, it might just as well be argued that there is no need for any ban on the production of the same goods elsewhere, since those can already not be sold because of the PDO.
Did I just misunderstood the PDO doctrine, or is this just overreach (if not abuse) of it?
A case of wanted to have their cheese and it it too?