25.2.2015 Official Journal of the European Union L 53/5 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/293 of 24 February 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Liliputas (PGI)) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (*), and in particular Articles 15(2) and 52(3)(b) thereof, Whereas: (1)  Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Lithuania’s application to register the name ‘Liliputas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). (2) By the notice of opposition of 13 September 2013 and the reasoned statement of opposition of 8 November 2013, Poland opposed to the registration under Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. The opposition was deemed admissible. (3) By letters dated 8 January 2014, the Commission invited the interested parties to engage in appropriate consult- ations to seek agreement among themselves in accordance with their internal procedures. (4)  No agreement was reached between Lithuania and Poland. (5)  Given that no agreement was reached, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. (6)  In accordance with Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 the opponent alleged that the registration of ‘Liliputas’ as a Protected Geographical Indication would jeopardise the existence of a partly identical name, of trade marks and of products which have been legally on the Polish market for significantly more than five years preceding the date the application for registration of the name ‘Liliputas’ as Protected Geographical Indication was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (15 June 2013); according to the opponent, that registration would be a threat to the existence of the product named ‘Liliput’, which is a Polish cheese having characteristics similar to ‘Liliputas’ cheese and whose name is phonetically similar to the name ‘Liliputas’. (7)  The opponent claims that the term ‘Liliput’ is generally used in Poland to refer to products characterised by their small size and it is used also for cheese. Cheese bearing the name ‘Liliput’ has been lawfully produced and marketed in Poland since 1971. In company standards, technical instructions and norms for the use of raw materials ‘Liliput’ cheese is listed among other types of cheese such as Gouda, Edam and Emmental. This term, referred to the Polish cheese, is popular among Polish consumers and it is in no way linked to the Lithuanian cheese. It is therefore to be considered as a generic term for generic cheese in Poland. As regards the product, Polish ‘Liliput’ cheese has characteristics, appearance, and dimensions similar to Lithuanian ‘Liliputas’ cheese. In the end, the opponent suggests, ‘Liliput’ and ‘Liliputas’ are similar products bearing generic names. Therefore, the registration of the name ‘Liliputas’ as Protected Geographical Indication would prevent the Polish producers from marketing their ‘Liliput’ cheese or, in any event, from using the name ‘Liliput’ for a cheese. (8)  The opponent claims also that the product and the name to be registered do not comply with the requirements of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. As stated in the published Single Document the cheese got the name ‘Liliputas’ because of its size. Therefore, the name ‘Liliputas’ does not indicate that the product comes from a particular place but, as the Polish cheese ‘Liliput’, just refers to the small size of the cheese. In addition, the qualities of the product are not attributable to its geographical origin but they simply derive from the fact of maturing in small rounds. The impact of the local microscopic mould Penicillium pallidum Smith on the organoleptic characteristics of ‘Liliputas’ is not proven. Furthermore, the fact that the product was produced under State Standards in USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) would confirm that it could be produced anywhere in USSR and that there was no specific link with the delimited geographical area. In the end, ‘Liliputas’ should be considered a generic product. () OJL343,14.12.2012,p. 1. () 0JC170,15.6.2013, p. 46.