{"id":8383,"date":"2022-01-06T17:26:30","date_gmt":"2022-01-06T16:26:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/\/2022-01-champagne-for-protected-designations-of-origin\/"},"modified":"2022-01-06T17:26:30","modified_gmt":"2022-01-06T16:26:30","slug":"2022-01-champagne-for-protected-designations-of-origin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/ja\/2022-01-champagne-for-protected-designations-of-origin\/","title":{"rendered":"2022\/01> CHAMPAGNE for Protected Designations of Origin!"},"content":{"rendered":"

On September 9th 2021, regarding the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO -\u2018appellation d\u2019origine prot\u00e9g\u00e9e<\/em>\u2019 in French) \u2018Champagne\u2019, the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of an extended protection of such appellations within the European Union (CJUE, 9 September 2021, C-783\/19 (1)<\/em>)<\/span>.<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The company GB was using the term \u2018CHAMPANILLO\u2019, meaning \u2018little champagne\u2019 in Spanish, alongside a figurative representation of two clinking glasses filled with sparkling beverages, in relation to restaurant services.<\/p>\n

In 2011 and 2015, this company filed Spanish trademark applications for \u2018CHAMPANILLO\u2019, all of which were refused by the Spanish Office following oppositions filed by the \u2018Comit\u00e9 interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne\u2019 (CICV) based on the French designation of origin ‘AOP Champagne\u2019.<\/p>\n

\u2018Champagne\u2019 is indeed a designation of origin, the protection of which<\/strong> is based on a specification covering a specific geographical area<\/strong> of five departments and 635 French municipalities.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

A protected designation of origin designates a product all of whose production steps are carried out based on recognised know-how in a same geographical area<\/strong>, giving the product its characteristics. The protection of PDOs is now the result of three European Regulations: Regulation (EU) No 1151\/2012 of 21 November 2012 (2)<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, Regulation (EU) No 1308\/2013 of 17 December 2013 (3)<\/em><\/span><\/strong>, and Regulation (EU) No 2019\/787 of 17 April 2019 (4)<\/em><\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In order to be protected throughout the European territory, PDOs must be subjected to a registration process before the European Commission, defined in Articles 48 et seq. of the 2012 Regulation.<\/p>\n

Despite the refusals of its trademarks applications, the company GB continued using the sign \u2018CHAMPANILLO\u2019. So, the CIVC started legal proceedings before the Commercial Court of Barcelona (Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Barcelona) to put an end to such infringements. The Court rejected the CIVC\u2019s claim and considered that the use of the sign \u2018CHAMPANILLO\u2019 was not evoking \u2018Champagne\u2019, as it was done for restaurant services and for services different from the products protected under the PDO and was targeting a different audience.<\/p>\n

The Court hence ruled that no infringement of the PDO \u2018Champagne\u2019 was characterised in the present case and, to that end, based its ruling on a decision of 1 March 2016 issued by the Spanish Supreme Court<\/a> which decided that the sign \u2018Champin\u2019 for non-alcoholic sparkling drinks for children, did not prejudice the PDO \u2018Champagne\u2019, as they were different goods concerning different publics.<\/p>\n

The CIVC appealed the decision before the Provincial Court of Barcelona (Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona), which referred a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice on the protection granted to PDOs<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

In its decision, the Court of Justice recalls first that the protection regime of PDOs resulting from the Regulation No 1234\/2007, since repealed by Regulation No 1308\/2013 (5)<\/em><\/strong><\/span>, has a uniform and exhaustive character which thus rules out application of a national protection regime or a regime resulting from the signature of bilateral treaties.<\/p>\n

Second, the Court relies on Article 103 of Regulation No 1308\/2013 of 17 December 2013 to issue its ruling.<\/p>\n

The Court observes the fact that the sign \u2018Champanillo\u2019, while suggesting the Appellation \u2018Champagne\u2019, significantly differs from it visually and phonetically. Consequently, the use of this sign does not fall under Article 103(2)(a) which protects PDOs against \u2018any direct or indirect commercial use of that protected name\u2019, when this use takes undue advantage of the PDO\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n

Then, the judges specify the interpretation to be given to Article 103(2)(b) which protects PDOs against \u2018any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product or service is indicated or if the protected name is translated, transcripted or transliterated or accompanied by an expression such as “style”, “type”, “method”, “as produced in”, “imitation”, “flavour”, “like” or similar\u2019.<\/p>\n