Wine Law

20 and services it designates. The scope of protection is extended to non-similar goods and services for registered trademarks with reputation (Arts. 8.5 and 60.1). 2) In case of identical reproduction of the sign and the designation of identical goods to those for which the prior trademark has been registered, the nullity of the application is obvious and does not raise any particular difficulties [Art. 8.1(a)]. However, when the sign is imitated (whether to designate identical or similar products), or if it is reproduced, but the designated products are simply similar to those of the prior trademarks, the second trademark will be considered as invalid provided the existence of a likelihood of confusion is established [Art. 8.1(b)]. The risk that the public might believe that the goods or services at issue come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion. Likelihood of confusion requires an overall assessment according to the relevant public’s perception of the signs and the goods or services at issue, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the signs, and vice versa 41 . 3) The perception of the signs by the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood of confusion. In the wine sector, according to consistent case-law, alcoholic beverages are for everyday consumption and are normally widely distributed, ranging from the food section of supermarkets, department stores and other retail outlets to restaurants and cafés and, the consumer of alcohol is a member of the general public, who is deemed to be reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, and who will demonstrate an average level of attention when purchasing such goods 42 . This assessment is not called into question by the limitations on access to alcoholic beverages resulting from restrictions on their sale depending on the age of consumers. 41 ECJ 13 September 2007, Il Ponte Finanziaria , C ‑ 234/06 §48; ECJ 29 September 1998, Canon , C-39/97 §17. 42 TEU 14 May 2013, Masottina , T ‑ 393/11, §24; TEU 30 June 2015, La Rioja Alta (Viña Alberdi) , T ‑ 489/13; TEU 19 January 2017, Stock Polska , T-701/15 §§18-26.