2018 Case-Law on Geographical Indications and Trade Marks

Oscar MONDEJAR 08.01.2019

ECJ/GC Judgments

Preliminary Ruling (request from DE Court)

Questions on the concepts of

• Indirect Commercial Use• Evocation• False or misleading indication

C-44/17 SCOTCH WHISKY ASSOCIATION. 7 June 2018

ECJ/GC

Clarifies the scope of protection of PGIs (re. Article 16 Regulation 110/2008)

‘Graduated list of prohibited conducts’: from more specific to more general

Direct and indirect commercial use: TM must be identical or similar to the PGI, not sufficient that it simply evokes the PGI

• Direct use: affixed to the product• Indirect use: in supplementary marketing

C-44/17 SCOTCH WHISKY ASSOCIATION. 7 June 2018

ECJ/GC

Evocation: • Criterion of ‘image triggered’, • Taking into account partial incorporation of the PGI in the TM, visual or phonetical similarity

and conceptual proximity, • Need of a clear and direct link, • Evocation to be assessed throughout the EU

False or misleading indication: • In any form on the description, presentation or labelling of the product• Affords extensive protection

C-44/17 SCOTCH WHISKY ASSOCIATION. 7 June 2018

ECJ/GC

Subject: Cancellation (Absolute Grounds: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM)

Outcome: Action dismissed (no evocation of the PDO)

Focus on:

• Function of the PDO• Assessment of evocation• ’Other meanings’ of the PDO and conceptual comparison

T-774/16 CONSEJO REGULADOR DEL CAVA/EUIPO. 12 July 2018

ECJ/GC

T-774/16

Class 33: ‘Wines with a registered designation of origin’

Conflict with PDO ‘CAVA’

Applicant’s arguments:

• PDOs which indicate qualities rather than geographical origin • Case of evocation

GC:

• Geographical origin and specific qualities go together• Visual and phonetic differences between the PDO and the TM• ES and FR consumers will also see another meaning in ‘Cava/Cave’ (=cellar)• Non ES/FR consumers will focus on visual and phonetic differences• No evocation

T-774/16 CONSEJO REGULADOR DEL CAVA/EUIPO. 12 July 2018

ECJ/GC

• Preliminary Ruling (request from the Supreme Spanish Court, pending)

• Questions:– Evocation of a PDO through figurative signs– Evocation of a PDO by a producer located in the region but whose products do not comply

with the PDO– Relevant public to be taken into account (European or from the Member State in question?)

• AG’s conclusions on 10/01/2019

C-614/17 Consejo Regulador Queso Manchego (pending)

ECJ/GC

Boards of Appeal Decisions

Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM

Outcome: EUTM Application refused

Focus on:

• TM which contains more than one PDO

• Labelling and TMs

R 2305/2017-5 CRU CÔTHES DU RHÔNE VACQUEYRAS (fig.) 21 February 2018

BOAs

R 2305/2017-5; EUTM 16 756 777

Class 33: ‘Wines with the PDO Vacqueyras’

• EUTM contains two PDOs:Côtes du Rhone (broader)Vacqueyras (smaller)

• ‘Cahiers des Charges’ are different• Labelling and TMs perform different

functions• Limitation of the goods is not possible

Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM

Outcome: EUTM Application refused

Focus on:

• TM which reproduces one element of the PGI

• ‘Other meanings’ of the PGI

R 26/2018-5 MATPRAT (fig.) 23 March 2018

BOAs

R 26/2018-5; EUTM 15 813 298

Class 29: ‘Meat; poultry’

• EUTM incorporates part of the PGI ‘Pollo y Capón del Prat’

• Likelihood of confusion is not required for evocation

• ES consumers will not understand the Norwegian meaning of ‘MATPRAT’ (=food talk) but the reference to a place

Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM

Outcome: EUTM Application refused

Focus on:

• TM which reproduces the PDO

• ‘Other meanings’ of the PDO and/or of the TM

R 44/2018-4 COLINA PIATRA ALBA. 25 May 2018

BOAs

R 44/2018-4; EUTM 16 699 761

Class 33: ‘Wines’

• EUTM incorporates the whole PDO ‘Alba’

• Amounts to a clear case of Article 102(1) of Regulation 1308/2013

• Irrelevant (and incongruent) to argue the ‘Alba’ has other meanings in IT or RO

COLINA PIATRA ALBA

Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM

Outcome: EUTM Application refused

Focus on:

• Assessment of evocation of the PDO• Element geographically significant of the PDO in the TM• Similarity of the products (comparable)

R 2110/2017-1 PIEMONTINO (Fig.). 16 July 2018

BOAs

R 2110/2017-1; EUTM 16 480 253

Class 29: ‘Cheese’

• EUTM incorporates the geographically significant part of the PGI ‘Toma Piemontese’

• Amounts to an evocation, according to the case-law

• Products are comparable (even with different appearance)

• Irrelevant that other cheeses are produced in Piemonte

• Applicant could have chosen other reference

Subject: Cancellation (Absolute and Relative Grounds for Refusal)

New Decision of the BOA following GC Judgment in Case T-359/14 (18/09/2015)

R 251/2016-1 COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE (Fig.). 30 November 2018

BOAs

R 251/2016-1; Cancellation 6 162 C

Subject: Cancellation (Absolute and Relative Grounds for Refusal)

Remits the case back to the Cancellation Division and gives guidance about several aspects related to inter allia:

• The scope of protection of the GI• The notion of comparable products• The reputation of the PGI

Subject: Relative Grounds for Refusal: Article 8(1)(b) EUTM (=no PDO involved)

Outcome: EUTM Application refused for services in Classes 35 and 39

To highlight:

• Reputation of a Traditional Term for Wine (or of a PDO)

R 2222/2013-1 CHACOMENA (Fig.). 14 December 2018

BOAs

R 2222/2013-1; Opposition B 2 080 813

Classes 33, 35 and 39

• Earlier ES TM ‘CHACOLÍ DE BIZKAIA DENOMINACIÓN DE ORIGEN’

• Reputation of a TTW or of a PDO is different from that of a TM

• Reputation of a TTW or of a PDO not to be taken into account in an opposition under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR

Presentation

Status DRAFT / APPROVED

Approved by owner -

Authors-

-

Contributors-

-

Revision history

Version Date Author Description

0.1 DD/MM/YYYY

0.1 DD/MM/YYYY

0.1 DD/MM/YYYY