A Case Comment on MNFPUGs Sustainable Cashmere Market Place Srl v European Commission (Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur)

Case Citation: Case T‑383/24

Court: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 25 February 2026

Coram/Judges
A. Marcoulli (President), J. Schwarcz and W. Valasidis (Rapporteur), H. Eriksson (Registrar).

Abstract

The dispute arose after the European Commission rejected a GI application for Mongolian cashmere on the ground that cashmere and wool were treated separately under the EU Combined Nomenclature (CN) system. The judgment is significant for reaffirming two principles in EU GI law. First, GI protection cannot be narrowed through administrative reliance on customs classifications absent legislative basis. Second, GI categories must be interpreted in light of market identity and consumer understanding rather than technical tariff distinctions. The decision reflects the Court’s broader preference for effective, consumer-oriented GI protection. It also raises a larger question- As EU GI protection expands beyond traditional food products, where should the limits of GI exclusivity be drawn?

Introduction

The EU’s Geographical Indication(GI) law has increasingly moved beyond a narrow protection of names towards a broader protection of commercial identity, consumer association, and origin-linked reputation. Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur v European Commission (T-383/24) raises a distinct but equally important question: who determines the boundaries of GI eligibility under EU law?

The dispute emerged from the European Commission’s attempt to rely on the EU Combined Nomenclature (CN) customs classification system to exclude cashmere from the category of “wool” under Regulation 1151/2012 (Regulation on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs). The case therefore sits at the intersection of two distinct legal frameworks within the EU- GI protection under the Common Agricultural Policy, and tariff-based product classification under customs law. The General Court rejected the Commission’s approach and held that the pre-2024 GI regime could not be narrowed through customs classifications absent express legislative incorporation.

Facts of the Case

The applicant sought registration of “Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur” as a PGI for Mongolian cashmere obtained from cashmere goats. Under the EU GI framework then in force, the product was classified within “Class 2.15 – wool.” The European Commission rejected the application on the ground that cashmere and wool were treated as distinct categories under the EU CN customs classification system, and that cashmere therefore fell outside the scope of Regulation 1151/2012. The applicant challenged this interpretation before the General Court.

Issues

i. Whether the Commission could rely on the EU CN customs classification system to define the scope of product categories recognised under Regulation 1151/2012, particularly the term “wool”.

ii. Whether cashmere could be excluded from the category of “wool” on the basis that EU customs law separately classifies sheep wool and fine animal hair.

iii. Whether GI Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 could be used to interpret the earlier GI regime under Regulation 1151/2012.

Reasoning of the Court

The General Court held that Regulation 1151/2012 did not incorporate the EU CN customs classification system unless the legislation expressly said so. The Court noted that while Annex I to the Treaty of Functioning of EU (TFEU) specifically referred to the Brussels customs nomenclature, Regulation 1151/2012 contained no such reference. In the Court’s view, this omission was deliberate and prevented the Commission from using customs classifications to narrow the scope of eligible GI products.

The Court further held that the term “wool” had to be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning in EU law. Referring to multilingual dictionary definitions, it observed that “wool” could include fibres obtained from animals other than sheep, including goats. It therefore criticised the Commission for treating customs classifications as determinative without first examining the ordinary meaning of the term. The Court also emphasised that Regulation 1151/2012, as part of the Common Agricultural Policy, was intended to protect geographically linked products rather than restrict protection through technical tariff distinctions.

The Court also rejected the Commission’s reliance on Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. It held that the new regulation could not retrospectively determine the meaning of the earlier regime. On the contrary, the fact that the 2024 regulation expressly incorporated CN-based classification demonstrated that the legislature used such references only where it intended to do so explicitly.

Critical Analysis

The judgment’s strongest feature is doctrinal discipline. It respects the principle that scope-limiting techniques must be textually grounded and it prevents an administrative body from importing a customs taxonomy into a quality-regime instrument without legislative warrant. That is particularly persuasive because Regulation 1151/2012 itself contained no CN cross-reference, while Regulation 2024/1143 later introduced one expressly.

The Court’s willingness to privilege the protection logic of GIs over a restrictive product-classification mindset is also noteworthy. The reasoning aligns with the broader EU GI case law, where the Court has repeatedly emphasised effectiveness and consumer-facing protection, whether through evocation in Champanillo or through protection against misleading presentation in Morbier. In that sense, the judgment resists a reductive reading that would treat GI law as a static inventory of tariff categories rather than a market-and-reputation regime.

Taken together, Morbier and Champanello and Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur reflect a broader shift towards expansive, effect-based GI protection. Morbier extends protection beyond names to a product’s characteristic appearance where it may mislead consumers as to origin. Champanillo extends protection beyond competing goods and rejects any requirement of product similarity for evocation. Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur similarly rejects a restrictive reading of product categories that would exclude an origin-linked fibre from GI protection.

This expansion, however, sits uneasily with parallel strands of EU trademark law that seek to preserve the free use of descriptive and geographical terms. Broader GI protection increasingly raises tensions between collective exclusivity, descriptive use, and pre-existing trademark rights. If “wool” is interpreted broadly and GI protection expands further into non-food products, courts will face growing pressure to define the limits of GI exclusivity within an unsettled doctrinal framework.

Impact

The judgment removes a significant obstacle for pre-2024 applications to register GI names for products that the Commission might otherwise have excluded through tariff classification. It will also influence pending or analogous disputes involving non-standard or borderline agricultural materials, especially where the product’s market identity is broader than its customs identity.

Conclusion

Mongol Togtvortoi Nooluur v European Commission (T-383/24) is a significant reaffirmation that the scope of EU GI protection under Regulation 1151/2012 cannot be narrowed through administrative reliance on customs classifications absent clear legislative authority. The judgment maintains the autonomy of the GI regime from the EU Combined Nomenclature framework and reinforces the Court’s broader preference for an effective, consumer-oriented approach to GI protection Its main value lies not in any dramatic expansion of GI doctrine, but in insisting that any narrowing of GI scope must come from the legislature, not from analogy to the Combined Nomenclature.

References

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v GB (Champanillo) (C-783/19)

Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS (C-490/19)

MNFPUGs Sustainable Cashmere Market Place Srl v European Commission, Case T‑383/24

Christopher Heath and Delphine Marie Vivien, ‘Geographical Indications and Principles of Trademark law-A distintly European Perspective’ (2015), Int’nl Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law

Dev Gangjee, ‘Relocating Geographical Indications’ (2011), Cambridge University Press