Wine Law

2 services, this constitutes a ground for refusal or invalidity of a later trade mark 3 . Such a straightforward “first come, first served” approach cannot be applied in connection with geographical indications: these are not arbitrarily chosen but refer to a distinct geographical area from which the relevant products originate and have often been in use to describe these products for a long time. Where products of the same kind originate from different geographical regions with similar names (e.g., situated along a river running through several countries), homonymous geographical indications occur 4 . These can also arise where a term protected in one country as a geographical indication (or its linguistic equivalent) is used in another country as a generic expression for the same type of product, regardless of its geographical origin 5 . In the wine sector, an additional layer of complexity is introduced by customary names of wine grape varieties, which are sometimes used in labelling of wine produced from the specific variety to indicate the wine’s type or characteristics. Varietal wines, such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Merlot, are named after the dominant grape variety from which they are produced, rather than the territory from which they originate 6 . The names of certain grape varieties, however, correspond to geographical indications for wine, which again raises the issue of homonymity where these names are used as an indication of a varietal wine. This paper will first present the general rules concerning homonymous geographical indications under the relevant international conventions and in the European Union law, followed by an examination of the specific rules of wine law concerning the permissibility of use of customary names of grape varieties in wine labelling. Finally, we will have a look at the “Teran” case and see in what way the General Court’s ruling addressed the situation where the customary name of a grape variety is homonymous with a geographical indication for wine. 3 Article 6 bis (1) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property; Article 5(1) of the Trade Marks Directive (EU) 2015/2436. 4 Possible Solutions for Conflicts between Trademarks and Geographical Indications and for Conflicts between Homonymous Geographical Indications, WIPO document SCT/5/3, 8 June 2000, paras. 55–56. 5 Geographical Indications and the Territoriality Principle, WIPO document SCT/9/5, 1 October 2002, para. 4. 6 J. Simpson, p. 292.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NzgyNzEy