Wine Law

11 to change over time and vary in space, should be determined according to the social consensus prevailing in that society at the time of the assessment. In making that determination, due account is to be taken of the social context, including, where appropriate, the cultural, religious or philosophical diversities that characterise it, in order to assess objectively what that society considers to be morally acceptable at that time ” 22 . Thus, it covers blasphemous, racist, discriminatory or insulting words or phrases, which would be perceived as such by the reasonable consumer with average sensitivity and tolerance thresholds. Therefore, the trademark designating, i nter alia , marcs and brandies in class 33 was refused registration, since “Hijoputa” is clearly perceived as an insult in Spanish 23 . However, recently, the ECJ has cancelled the refusal of an application for “Fack Ju Göhte”, designating various products, including “Alcoholic beverages (except beers)” in class 33, for misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 7.1(f), since no concrete evidence has been plausibly put forward to explain why the German-speaking public at large will perceive the word sign “Fack Ju Göhte” as going against the fundamental moral values and standards of society when it is used as a trademark, even though that same public does not appear to have considered the title of the eponymous comedies, having been one of the greatest film successes of 2013 in Germany, to be contrary to accepted principles of morality. Furthermore, it has been ruled that freedom of expression must be taken into account when applying Article 7.1(f) of Regulation 207/2009. I.4. Lack of Deceptiveness and Wine Trademarks From the moment they incorporate the denomination of their origin, traditional wine trademarks require articulation with all regulated terms or titles in the wine sector, in particular AOs and GIs, which imply adjustments and limitations to freedom of choice in the trademark sign. 22 ECJ, 27 February 2020 Fack Ju Göhte C-240/18, §39 23 TEU 9 March 2012 Federico Cortés del Valle López, T-417/10