PL EN


2018 | 1(22) | 179-197
Article title

La interferencia entre marcas e indicaciones geográficas en el ámbito vitivinícola

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
Interferences between trademarks and geographical indications in the wine sector
IT
L’interferenza tra marchi e indicazioni geografiche nel settore vitivinicolo
PL
La interferencia entre marcas e indicaciones geográficas en el ámbito vitivinícola
Languages of publication
ES
Abstracts
PL
The judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber), Case T 696/15 of 9 February 2017, against EUIPO examines, among the procedural aspects of the European trade mark regime, non-registration of a wine product in the event of non-compliance with the essential, in particular absolute, requirements for the acquisition of a mark in the territory of the European Union. In examining the various provisions at European level which provide for the granting or denial of trademarks and for the purpose of ensuring that geographical indications are fully effective in the European trade mark registration proceedings, this is to prevent holders from incurring any the grounds for annulment, Regulation Nº 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (hereinafter referred to as the CTMR), 7. 1, (j), points out that they are excluded from the register ‘wine marks containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying wines, or marks of spirit drinks containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying the spirits, where such wines or drinks do not have such origin’. The inadmissibility of the application for a word mark which contains a geographical indication which does not belong to it and also coincides with other appellations of origin is, inter alia, the central argument of the judicial issue under consideration. The legal question arose in 2014, when a Spanish mercantile company (Bodegas Vega Sicilia) decided to register the word mark “Tempos Vega Sicilia” before the EUIPO which, however, denied the registration of the same because it the term “Sicilia” is part of the protected designations of origin for wines. Hence, the mercantile company decided to appeal in 2015 to the EU General Court, which rejected the appeal by ruling of 9 February 2017, also rejecting, as the EUIPO did at the time, the arguments of the applicant relating to the existence of a family of registered trade marks prior to the registration of the DO or the potential popularity of said family of trademarks and guaranteeing maximum protection of protected geographical denominations and, therefore, denying registration when, when included in a trademark, it was not limited to the product of the said geographical area.
IT
Nell’articolo viene affrontata la tematica di cui nella sentenza del Tribunale (Sesta Sezione) del 9 febbraio 2017, Causa T-696/15 contro Ufficio dell’Unione europea per la proprietà intellettuale riguardante i marchi dell’Unione europea, in particolare l’impedimento assoluto alla registrazione nel caso in cui un produttore non soddisfi i requisiti che gli consentano di utilizzarlo nell’Unione Europea. L’Autrice dimostra che, ai sensi delle disposizioni contenute nell’art. 7.1., lett. j), del Regolamento (CE) n. 207/2009 del Consiglio del 26 febbraio 2009, non possono essere registrati i marchi dei vini che contengono o consistono in indicazioni geografiche che identificano vini, o degli alcolici che contengono o consistono in indicazioni geografiche che identificano alcolici, rispetto ai vini o alcolici che non hanno tale origine. Nella sentenza riportata, il Tribunale ha statuito l’inammissibilità di accogliere una domanda di registrazione di un marchio denominativo che contiene un’indicazione geografica di cui non si possiede il diritto e per di più somigliante alle denominazioni di origine protetta già in uso. La situazione descritta si è verificata nel 2014, quando la società commerciale spagnola „Bodegas Vega Sicilia” ha presentato all’EQUIPO una domanda di registrazione del marchio „Tempos Vega Sicilia”, respinta poi a causa dell’uso del termine „Sicilia” in relazione alle indicazioni geografiche protette che identificano vini provenienti da una delle regioni italiane. Nel 2015, il Tribunale ha respinto il ricorso presentato dalla società spagnola sostenendo che non era vera l’affermazione secondo la quale, prima che venisse registrata l’indicazione geografica „Sicilia”, un gruppo di marchi che utilizzava questo termine era stato già registrato all’EQUIPO. Di conseguenza il marchio menzionato non poteva essere registrato.
EN
The judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber), Case T 696/15 of 9 February 2017, against EUIPO examines, among the procedural aspects of the European trade mark regime, non-registration of a wine product in the event of non-compliance with the essential, in particular absolute, requirements for the acquisition of a mark in the territory of the European Union. In examining the various provisions at European level which provide for the granting or denial of trademarks and for the purpose of ensuring that geographical indications are fully effective in the European trade mark registration proceedings, this is to prevent holders from incurring any the grounds for annulment, Regulation Nº 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (hereinafter referred to as the CTMR), 7. 1, (j), points out that they are excluded from the register ‘wine marks containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying wines, or marks of spirit drinks containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying the spirits, where such wines or drinks do not have such origin’. The inadmissibility of the application for a word mark which contains a geographical indication which does not belong to it and also coincides with other appellations of origin is, inter alia, the central argument of the judicial issue under consideration. The legal question arose in 2014, when a Spanish mercantile company (Bodegas Vega Sicilia) decided to register the word mark “Tempos Vega Sicilia” before the EUIPO which, however, denied the registration of the same because it the term “Sicilia” is part of the protected designations of origin for wines. Hence, the mercantile company decided to appeal in 2015 to the EU General Court, which rejected the appeal by ruling of 9 February 2017, also rejecting, as the EUIPO did at the time, the arguments of the applicant relating to the existence of a family of registered trade marks prior to the registration of the DO or the potential popularity of said family of trademarks and guaranteeing maximum protection of protected geographical denominations and, therefore, denying registration when, when included in a trademark, it was not limited to the product of the said geographical area.
Year
Issue
Pages
179-197
Physical description
Dates
published
2018-06-01
Contributors
  • Uniwersytet w Jaén, Hiszpania
References
  • Baylos Corroza H. (1993), Tratado de Derecho Industrial, Madrid.
  • Bercovitz Rodríguez-Cano A. (2006), Apuntes de Derecho Mercantil, Aranzadi, Pamplona.
  • Botana Agra M.J. (2001), Las Denominaciones de Origen, en G. Jiménez Sánchez (dir.), Tratado de derecho mercantil, vol. 2: Las denominaciones de origen, Barcelona.
  • Brandt D. (1985), La protection élargie de la marque de haute renommée au-delá des produits identiques et similaires, Genéve.
  • Fernández-Nóvoa C. (2004), Tratado sobre Derecho de Marcas, Madrid.
  • Fernández-Novoa C., García Vidal A. (1970), La Protección Internacional de las Denominaciones Geográficas de los productos, Madrid.
  • Fernández-Novoa C., García Vidal A. (2001), Derecho de marcas: Legislación. Jurisprudencia comunitaria, Madrid.
  • Fernández-Novoa C., García Vidal A. (2002), Legislación. Jurisprudencia comunitaria (Actualización), Madrid.
  • Gangjee D. (2007), Quibbling Siblings: Conflicts between Trademarks and Geographical Indications, “Chicago-Kent Law Review” Vol. 82, No 3.
  • Germanò A., Voyce M., Stern S. (2004), Australia e Usa all’attacco delle Indicazioni geografiche comunitarie, “Agricoltura – Istituzioni – Mercati (AIM), Rivista di diritto agroalimentare e ambientale” Vol. 1.
  • Goebel B., Groeschl M. (2014), The long road to resolving conflicts between Trademarks and Geographical Indications, “The Trademark Reporter” Vol. 104, No 4.
  • Guillerm Carau J. (2008), Denominaciones Geográficas de Calidad. Estudio de su reconocimiento y protección en la OMC, la UE y el Derecho español, Valencia.
  • Largo Gil R. (1993), Las marcas de garantía, Madrid.
  • Lobato M. (2007), Comentario a la Ley 17/2001 de Marcas, Navarra.
  • Maroño Gargallo M. del M. (2002), La protección jurídica de las denominaciones de origen en los Derechos español y comunitario, Madrid.
  • Marco Arcalá L.A. (2001), Las causas de denegación de registro de la marca comunitaria, Valencia.
  • Martínez Gutiérrez A. (2008), La tutela comunitaria de las Denominaciones Geográficas, Barcelona.
  • Martínez Gutiérrez A. (2011), Nuevos Títulos de protección de carácter comunitario para los vinos de calidad, Cizur Menor (Navarra).
  • O’Connor B. (2004), The Law of Geografical Indications, London.
  • Vanzetti A. (2009), Giurisprudenza Annotata di Diritto Industriale, Milan.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_14746_ppr_2018_22_1_12
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.