Commentaire sur les décisions Google My Business

Un commentaire qui interroge notamment les conditions de collecte des données personnelles professionnelles par Google My Business.
Google My Business la saga continue..

Dans le prolongement de mes précédents articles sur le sujet :
Protection des données personnelles

Google refuse de rémunérer la presse

Droits voisins: Google défie la France

Google refuses to remunerate the French press, in spite of the new incitating EU directive. It's a twenty years old debate now. Google has always considered that the links and excerpts pointing to the news had to be free, as well as the indexing of any web page.

One can understand this point of view. And why should the press could not make it without Google ? Journalists should make a front.

Google forgets anyway that journalism is a real work, and that news are not presented, within the Google search engine, as "any web page" but under a specific "news" tab or app. 

So there is obviously a kind of undue profit if one consider that Google makes its own newspaper with third parties contents, even limited to titles and excerpts. follow.

Protected designation of origin Champagne and trademark law within the European Union, the issue of labeling

Trademark law aims to protect the commercial circuit by associating a sign with a line of products or services in a given territory. In the European Union, it is harmonized by European Union law. The Union also has its own Community trade mark system valid throughout the Union and managed by the Union Trademark Office, the EUIPO ex-OHIM.

Protected designation of origin is a legal regime of Union law (during the French AOC) which aims to promote and maintain local terroirs and know-how.

EU law (Articles 2, 3 and 4 TFEU) provides for exclusive EU competence in trade policy, competition rules and customs union, and shared competence with the Member States in sectors of agriculture and consumer protection.

Since the subject is both a matter of market protection and the quality of products, EU law is therefore very present.

"PDO protected designations of origin" are granted under strict conditions and are effectively protected.

PDOs attest to the quality of a product because of its origin and the methods used. Their use is strictly regulated.

A distributor can not distribute champagne without affixing the word champagne.

With regard to champagne, the Champagne Committee (CIVC), a French national institution, controls the affixing of trademarks and associated labeling on champagne products, through a system of registration of the brand act of a manipulator or a distributor). The number thus attributed must appear on all documents relating to the product.

Example of a subject of conflict:

Traditional denominations assimilated to appellations of origin should not be confused with certain traditional, non-geographical terms relating to wines and spirits, such as "traditional method", "reserve", "clos", "village" or "castle". These statements are not designations of origin, but sare protected as corollaries of certain appellations which they are booked.

Translations: PDO-PGI - The PDO-PGI regulations explicitly provide for the case of the translation of appellations.

Articles 13 (1) (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and 103 (2) (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 guarantee the protection of PDOs and PGIs. registered, "even if the protected name is translated" (see ECJ, 26 Feb. 2008, case C-132/05, point 78, number 120, protection of PDO "Parmigiano Reggiano" in its translated from "parmesan").

This protection is in line with Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement - the regulations refer to it - which, in the context of the additional protection for wines and spirits, excludes the translation of geographical indications into concerning to designate strictly similar products:

TRIPS, art. 23

'each Member shall provide the legal means enabling interested parties to prevent the use of a geographical indication identifying wines for wines which are not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication in question, or identifying spirits for spirits that do not originate in the place indicated by the geographical indication in question, even in cases where the geographical indication is used in translation.'

Main texts related to the wine sector


Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labeling and protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing the Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 Council

Regulation (EC) No 491/2009 of 25 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organization of agricultural markets and on specific provisions as regards certain products in this sector (Single CMO)

RegulationCommission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 314/2012 of 12 April 2012 amending Regulations (EC) No 555/2008 and (EC) No 436/2009 in concerning the documents accompanying the transport of wine products and the registers to be kept in the wine sectorwine

Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the organization ofNo common agricultural product market and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/273 of 11 December 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the system of authorizations for vine plantings, the vineyard register, the documents and certification, the register of entries and exits, the compulsory declarations, the notifications and the publication of notified information, supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applicable controls and penalties amending Regulations (EC) No 555/2008, (EC) No 606/2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 436/2009 of the Commission and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/560 of the Commission

Delegated Regulation (EU) 2 019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for the protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional wine sector, the opposition procedure, restrictions on use, amendments to specifications, cancellation of protection, labeling and presentation


Wine Code, Article 152 et seq. in particular
Law of 6 May 1919 on the protection of designations of origin
Law of 13 January 1938 supplementing the provisions of the Decree of 30 July 1935 on controlled appellations of origin
Act of 12 April 1941 establishing an interprofessional committee for Champagne wine
Decree No. 78 -71 of 17 January 1978 concerning the density of plantations, the methods of conduct and the methods of size of the vines intended for the production of wines with a designation of origin contrôlée "Champagne and" Coteaux champenois "
Decree n ° 2010-1441 of November 22, 2010 relating to the controlled label of origin" Champagne "
Decree n ° 2012-655 of May 4, 2012 relating to the labeling and the traceability of vitivinicultural products and certain oenological practices

Conclusions de l'avocat général sur C-18-18 Piesczek contre Facebook - Obligation de surveillance de l'hébergeur limitée à l'atteinte

"Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘the Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a host provider which operates a social network platform from being ordered, in the context of an injunction, to seek and identify, among all the information disseminated by users of that platform, the information identical to the information that has been characterised as illegal by a court that issued that injunction. In the context of such an injunction, a host provider may be ordered to seek and identify the information equivalent to that characterised as illegal only among the information disseminated by the user that disseminated that illegal information. A court adjudicating on the removal of such equivalent information must ensure that the effects of its injunction are clear, precise and foreseeable. In doing so, it must weigh up the fundamental rights involved and take account of the principle of proportionality."

L’article 15, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2000/31/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 8 juin 2000, relative à certains aspects juridiques des services de la société de l’information, et notamment du commerce électronique, dans le marché intérieur (« directive sur le commerce électronique ») doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il ne s’oppose pas à ce qu’un hébergeur qui exploite une plateforme de réseau social soit contraint, dans le cadre d’une injonction, de rechercher et d’identifier, parmi toutes les informations diffusées par les utilisateurs de cette plateforme, les informations identiques à celle ayant été qualifiée d’illicite par une juridiction ayant rendu cette injonction. Dans le cadre d’une telle injonction, un hébergeur peut être contraint de rechercher et d’identifier les informations équivalant à celle qualifiée d’illicite uniquement parmi des informations diffusées par l’utilisateur ayant diffusé cette information. Une juridiction statuant sur le retrait de telles informations équivalentes doit garantir que les effets de son injonction sont clairs, précis et prévisibles. Ce faisant, elle doit mettre en balance les droits fondamentaux en présence et tenir compte du principe de proportionnalité.

Le projet de loi haine en ligne

Le projet en discussion vise à discipliner internet, et on oscille entre peur d'une possible dictature naissante et le besoin évident de répression des contenus malfaisants - Il est en effet inadmissible que des gens se lâchent sur internet alors que bien évidemment ils ne le feraient pas dans la rue, en tout cas pas seuls. Mais c'est donc surtout l'anonymat sur internet qui favorise les comportements déviants, le projet en discussion ne développe pas assez ce point et se repose sur les hébergeurs, les moteurs, les FAI et les autorités administratives pour traiter les retraits, sans responsabilisation des internautes, un embryon de dictature donc.

Commentaire sur les décisions Google My Business

Un commentaire qui interroge notamment les conditions de collecte des données personnelles professionnelles par Google My Business. Google...