Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (Judgment) French Text [2021] EUECJ C-783/19 (09 September 2021)

Comite Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (Judgment) French Text [2021] EUECJ C-783/19 (09 September 2021)

Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 must be interpreted as protecting PDOs against acts relating to both products and services; 'evocation' does not require identity or similarity between the PDO product and the contested product/service, but is established if the average European consumer, reasonably well-informed and attentive, makes a sufficiently direct and unequivocal link between the contested sign and the PDO. This protection is not contingent on a finding of unfair competition and applies independently of national unfair competition law.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ C-783/19
Parties
Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne; Respondent: GB
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
09 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (renvoi Préjudiciel) / Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) on Reference From Audiencia Provincial De Barcelona
Outcome
Questions answered; interpretation of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provided to the referring court.
Legal Topics
Protected Designations of Origin (pdo), Geographical Indications, Trademark Law, Unfair Competition, Consumer Protection
European Union Law Intellectual Property Law Agricultural Law Protected Designations of Origin (pdo) Geographical Indications Trademark Law Unfair Competition Consumer Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

Applicant

GB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (renvoi Préjudiciel) / Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) on Reference From Audiencia Provincial De Barcelona

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 protect PDOs against acts relating to services as well as products?
  2. 2 Does 'evocation' under Article 103(2)(b) require identity or similarity between the PDO product and the product/service using the contested sign?
  3. 3 Is 'evocation' established by objective criteria and the perception of the average consumer?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 must be interpreted as protecting PDOs against acts relating to both products and services; 'evocation' does not require identity or similarity between the PDO product and the contested product/service, but is established if the average European consumer, reasonably well-informed and attentive, makes a sufficiently direct and unequivocal link between the contested sign and the PDO. This protection is not contingent on a finding of unfair competition and applies independently of national unfair competition law.

Court Disposition

Questions answered; interpretation of Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provided to the referring court.

Orders

  • Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 protects PDOs against acts relating to both products and services.
  • 'Evocation' does not require identity or similarity between the PDO product and the contested product/service; it is established by a sufficiently direct and unequivocal link in the mind of the average consumer.