Winst voor de merkhouder in zaak over 'Portobello Road Gin'

EUIPO 15 juni 2016 IEF 16250; IEFBE 1929; Case R 1105/2015-4 (Portobello Road Gin) Merkenrecht. Geografische aanduiding. De Federatie van Porto producenten, houder van oorsprongsbenaming PORTO, heeft oppositie ingesteld tegen de CTM-aanvrage voor 'PORTOBELLO ROAD GIN' door Walker Morris. Het OHIM heeft eerder (op 17 april 2015) de oppositie toegewezen gezien de visuele, conceptuele en auditieve overeenkomsten. In het bezwaarschrift wordt door Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto ingegaan op artikel 8 ( 4) EUTMR.

De oppositie was gebaseerd op de benaming van oorsprong beschermd in Portugal voor het teken ' PORTO / PORT’, geclaimd in de handel te worden gebruikt voor ‘versterkte wijn’. De aanvrager beschuldigde de oppositieafdeling van een ongegronde vergelijking van conflicterende tekens. Eigenlijk is het omstreden teken een samengesteld merk met verschillende verbale elementen, voornamelijk ‘Portobello Road’, ‘LONDON DRY GIN’, en ‘gedistilleerd en gebotteld in Engeland.’ Dit geldt ook voor de figuratieve elementen, waaronder een rode leeuw, de nationale vlag van het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Dit leidt tot visuele en auditieve verschillen. Het publiek zou niet afgesplitst van de term 'PORTO' worden. De aanvrager verwierp ook dat 'gin’ als product te vergelijken is met ‘wijn.’ De merkhouder wordt in het gelijk gesteld.

3  In the notice of opposition filed by Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto it was indicated that the grounds for opposition were those laid down in Article 8(4) EUTMR. The opposition was based on the appellation of origin protected in Portugal for the sign ‘PORTO / PORT’ claimed to be used in trade for ‘fortified wine’. As grounds for opposition, the text of Article 8(4) EUTMR was quoted. No further statements were made in or together with the notice of opposition.

7  The Opposition Division proceeded from the basis that the EU system for the protection of geographic indications of wines is directly applicable and super- sedes any national protection as a geographical indication. It applied relevant provisions of Regulation No1083/2013. It observed that that Regulation protected ‘wines’ against comparable products. It reasoned that for the contested goods ‘gin’ that was the case. It found the conflicting signs similar and took the position that in the contested sign the relevant public would associate the word ‘PORTO’ which is part of the word ‘PORTOBELLO’ with the city of ‘PORTO’ in northern Portugal. It concluded that this led to an imitation or evocation of the geographic indication ‘PORTO’ and that the contested sign could mislead consumers in relation to the protected terms when applied to wines and spirits.

12  The appeal is well founded. The opposition must be rejected.

13  The grounds for opposition were those laid down in Article 8(4) EUTMR. The opponent had to identify the earlier right or rights. He had to indicate the protected sign (here: PORTO and PORT, claimed in parallel, so to say), the territory of protection (the Member State(s) or, as the case may be, the EU), and the exact nature of the earlier right. These are identification requirements under Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) IR. Next, as a substantiation requirement under Rule 19(2) IR, the opponent had also to prove the existence, the exact scope of protection and the actual use in the course of trade of the respective rights.

18  The only thing which was clear was that the opponent invoked the term ‘PORTO’ in relation to (fortified) wine as a protected geographic indication with origin in Portugal. For this he could rely on EU legislation, for which he was not under the duty to submit the text of the relevant legislation, and it is common ground that ‘PORTO’ is actually registered as a geographical indication for wine at EU level. 

24  The essential function of a geographical indication – as an IP right – is not to monopolise the name of a city or region. Any city or region serves as a place of protection of innumerable other goods. The essential function of a geographical indication is to protect the link between a product (and its characteristics) and a geographic origin. Geographical indications or appellations of origin are meant to protect the consumer’s expectations that a given product has the geographic origin indicated on the product.

37  In particular any such national law cannot lead to a protection of the geographical indication under conditions which are different or, and that would be the only thing which would matter, more favourable that those established in the applicable EU Regulations. The Board cannot see any convincing argument of law in the judgment of 18.11.2015, T-659/14, ‘PORT CHARLOTTE’, EU:T:2015:863, that would challenge that conclusion.

40  The opponent (respondent) is the losing party both in the opposition and appeal procedure and shall be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, pursuant to Article 85(1) EUTMR.