Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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