Parma-style' raw ham is fraudulent marketing

The use of the dication "Parma type" to mislead and describe a product that has no connection with the quality, origin or characteristics of PDO Parma Ham is a "deceptive deception", i.e. one likely to mislead a person of normal circumspection. It occurs when a label or description leads theconsumer to believe that the product has certain protected qualities or origins, when in fact it does not.

The Court of Cassation - in its judgement of the Third Criminal Section 32260 of 30 September 2025 - emphasised that the injury does not depend on the specific request of the purchaser, i.e. on the demand or preference expressed by the consumer at the time of purchase, that is, what the purchaser asks for or expects to receive. But on the fact that the use of a name similar to the protected one (such as 'tipo Parma') violates consumer confidence and the rules of fair trade. The label 'tipo Parma' was considered sufficient to create an erroneous expectation as to the quality and origin of the product, thus constituting a deceptive commercial practice and punishable under Articles 515 and 517 bis of the Penal Code.

The defendant had been convicted in first instance and in appeal for fraud in the exercise of trade (Article 515, Criminal Code) and for the aggravating circumstance of Article 517-bis, Criminal Code, relating to the protection of foodstuffs with designation of origin. And he had marketed cured ham using the term 'Parma type', in violation of the legislation protecting the protected designations of origin (PDO). The locution or wording was considered misleading and detrimental to the rules of fair trade. The protection of PDOs and fair trade protects both consumers and producers from misleading practices.

The Court emphasised that the deception depends on the fact that the use of a name similar to the protected name (such as 'tipo Parma') violates consumer confidence and the rules of fair trade. And the offence of commercial fraud arises irrespective of the purchaser's specific request, focusing on the protection of consumer confidence and the integrity of commercial transactions.

The defendant's defence had tried to prove his extraneousness to the management of the orders and to argue the existence of a commercial practice on the use of the term 'Parma type'. And it was argued that the offence should not have occurred if the purchaser had not explicitly requested PDO Parma ham, but a generic or alternative product. However, the Court of Cassation clarified that the specific request of the purchaser is not relevant for the purposes of configuring the offence of commercial fraud. What matters is the use of a deceptive designation ('Parma type') that violates consumer confidence and the rules of fair trade, regardless of what the purchaser requested. This principle protects not only the consumer, but also the producers of PDO products, preventing their brand from being fraudulently exploited.