Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T08:02:43.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scrutinizing the Expanding Scope of Geographical Indication Protection: A Critical Analysis of the Justifications for the Anti-Evocation Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2023

Xinzhe Song Open the ORCID record for Xinzhe Song [Opens in a new window]
Xinzhe Song*
Affiliation:
Law School of Hainan University, China
*
Email: songxinzhe0010@foxmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The global trend towards heightened protection for geographical indications (GIs) has been bolstered by the incorporation of anti-evocation provisions in various bilateral and regional trade agreements, primarily led by the European Union (EU). While these anti-evocation measures have raised GI protection to an unprecedented level, they also place limitations on the freedom of expression and competition for other market players. This article conducts a critical analysis of the necessity of those restrictions by evaluating the justifications for implementing anti-evocation protection. Specifically, the analysis centres on the formal justifications put forth by law enforcement authorities and their direct contribution to enforcement errors and inconsistencies. Furthermore, inherent limitations within these justifications are also identified. Clarifying the rationale for anti-evocation protection and establishing a clearly defined scope of protection, substantiated by sound justifications, could effectively mitigate errors and inconsistencies in law enforcement and minimize any undue impact on the public interest. Countries that have adopted or are considering adopting anti-evocation protection, following the EU's lead, should exercise caution to avoid similar pitfalls.

Keywords

Geographical indicationanti-evocation protectionfree trade agreementrural developmentjustification
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 2024 , pp. 20 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of World Trade Organization

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1241/2002 of 10 July 2002 [2002] OJ L181/4.

2 CA Paris, 18 November 2022, n° 21/16539.

3 See, e.g., Evans, G.E. and Blakeney, M. (2006) ‘The Protection of Geographical Indications after Doha: Quo Vadis?’, Journal of International Economic Law 9, 575Google Scholar; Josling, T. (2006) ‘The War on Terroir: Geographical Indications as a Transatlantic Trade Conflict’, Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 337Google Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Taubman, A. et al. (ed.) (2020) A Handbook on the WTO TRIPS Agreement, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 95–100Google Scholar; Hughes, J. (2006) ‘Champagne, Feta, and Bourbon: The Spirited Debate about Geographical Indications’, Hastings Law Journal 58, 299, 302Google Scholar.

5 M. Handler (2016) ‘Rethinking GI Extension’, in D. Gangjee (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 146, 147.

6 See e.g., Engelhardt, T. (2015) ‘Geographical Indications under Recent EU Trade Agreements’, IIC–International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 46, 781, 783–787Google Scholar; Huysmans, M. (2020) ‘Exporting Protection: EU Trade Agreements, Geographical Indications, and Gastronationalism’, Review of International Political Economy 1, 7–10Google Scholar; Prescott, C. et al. (2020) ‘Geographical Indications in the UK after Brexit: An Uncertain Future?’, Food Policy 90, 101808Google Scholar; Curzi, D. and Huysmans, M. (2022) ‘The Impact of Protecting EU Geographical Indications in Trade Agreements’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 104, 364Google Scholar.

7 Calboli, I. (2021) ‘Geographical Indications: New Perspectives and Recent Developments’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 16, 289Google Scholar.

8 See Section 2.2.

9 See Section 2.1.

10 See Section 2.2.

11 Currently, both the European Parliament (EP) and the Council of the European Union (Council) have taken negotiation positions to delete the commission's proposed definition of ‘evocation’. See EP, ‘Amendments adopted by the European Parliament’ (2023) P9 TA(2023)0210, amendment 142; Council, ‘Mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament’ (2023) 8598/2/23 REV 2, article 27. See also Section 4.5.

12 See, e.g., C. Le Goffic (2020) ‘Réflexions Autour de la Notion d'Evocation en Matière d'Indications Géographiques', Légipresse 61.

13 See, e.g., D. Gangjee, ‘Strengthening GIs (Responsibly)’ (Keynote Address, European Commission Strengthening Geographical Indications Conference, 25 November 2020), https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/events/strengthening-geographical-indications-2020-11-25_en (accessed 21 February 2023).

14 See, e.g., Paganizza, V. (2015) ‘More Holes than Cheese: PDOs, Evocation and a Possible Solution’, European Food and Feed Law Review 10, 222Google Scholar, 225.

15 See, e.g., A. Zappalaglio (2022) ‘Getting Art 22(1) TRIPS Right: A Commentary on the Definition of “Geographical Indication” from an EU Perspective with a Focus on Wines’, Journal of World Investment & Trade 23, 180; X. Wang (2022) ‘Expanding Geographical Indication Protection at Any Cost? A Critique of the EU Law of Evocation’, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 12, 206, 224.

16 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2015) ‘Report Adopted by the Working Group on the Development of the Lisbon System’, LI/WG/DEV/10/7, 10.

17 Díaz-Marta, V. Zafrilla and Kyrylenko, A. (2021) ‘The Ever-Growing Scope of Geographical Indications’ Evocation', Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 16, 442Google Scholar, 447–448.

18 The test of proportionality is also applied in various fields of intellectual property law to ensure the justification of exclusive rights. See, e.g., Merges, R.P. (2011) Justifying Intellectual Property. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 160Google Scholar.

19 See Section 4.

20 Existing literature has explored the legitimacy of prohibiting evocation from legal, moral, and societal standpoints. Le Goffic argues that the prohibition of evocation is necessary to avoid consumer confusion, whereas Gibson emphasizes the importance of protecting against potential risks associated with evocative uses that could alter the consumer perception of the GI. This article aims to examine the justifications presented by implementing authorities and shed light on the inconsistencies and errors in the implementation of the anti-evocation clause, which can be attributed to a lack of robust justifications. See C. Le Goffic (2018) ‘Appellations d'Origine et Indications Géographiques en Droit Français', JurisClasseur Marques – Dessins et modèles, Fasc. 8100, para. 135; J. Gibson (2019) ‘Tilting at Windmills: The Law of Evocation in Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin’, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 9, 239, 234.

21 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (1988) ‘Guidelines and Objectives Proposed by the European Community’, MTN.GNG/NG11/W/26, 9.

22 The Lisbon Agreement of 1958 mandates the protection against ‘usurpation or imitation’. In the preparatory discussions for the Geneva Act, the EU has previously sought to broaden this scope by including ‘evocation’, thereby prohibiting any ‘misuse, imitation, or evocation’. For the EU, ‘imitation’ and ‘evocation’ hold distinct meanings. The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) explains: ‘The mark “imitates” (mimics, reproduces elements of, etc.), with the result that the product designated by the GI is “evoked” (called to mind). The term “evocation” requires less than “imitation” or “misuse”.’ See EUIPO (2022) ‘Guidelines for Examination in the Office’, Part B Examination, p. 588; World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2015) ‘Working Group on the Development of the Lisbon System (Appellations of Origin)’, LI/WG/DEV/10/7, 9.

23 The anti-evocation provisions proposed in international agreements by the EU closely resemble the language used in the EU GI regulations. These provisions, akin to the EU regulations, mandate the prohibition of ‘any misuse, imitation, or evocation (emphasis added)’. However, an exception arises within the EU's agreement with China, wherein the primary text of the agreement refrains from explicitly employing the terminology ‘evocation’. Instead, in footnote 4 of the agreement, the practice of suggesting mental association, which is a core element of the evocation concept, is acknowledged as a ‘use’ that should be prohibited. See European Commission (EC), ‘Proposal for a Council Decision’ (2020) COM/2020/213 final, footnote 4: ‘the Parties agree that “any use” or “use of any means” may encompass … use that would suggest or indicate a connection or an association’ (emphasis added).

24 EC (2020) ‘Proposal for a Council Decision’ COM/2020/213 final.

25 EC (2021) ‘Annex to the Recommendation for a Council Decision’, COM(2020) 697 final/2, 1.

26 EC (2016) ‘Annex to the Joint Proposal for a Council Decision’, JOIN(2016) 26 final, annex 1, article 82.

27 EC (2022) ‘Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2022) 277 final, annex, article 121.

28 EC (2010) ‘Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2010) 648 final, article 7.

29 EC (2012) ‘Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2012) 137 final, article 4.

30 EC (2016) ‘Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2016) 524 final, p. 2.

31 EC (2011) ‘Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2011) 223 final, article 4.

32 EC (2015) ‘Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2015) 181 final, annex 1, article 35.

33 EC (2013) ‘Annex I to the Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2013) 290 final, annex I, article 204.

34 Economic Partnership Agreement [2008] OJ L289/3, article 145.

35 EC (2017) ‘Annex to the Joint Recommendation for a Council Decision’, JOIN(2017) 19 final, annex 1, p. 12.

36 EC (2015) ‘Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2015) 446 final, annex 1, article 7.

37 EC (2016) ‘Annex to the Proposal for a Council Decision’, COM(2016) 18 final, annex 7, protocol 3, article 5.

38 EC (2017) ‘Annex to the Recommendation for a Council Decision’, COM(2017) 469 final, annex 1, p. 7.

39 EC (2017) ‘Annex to the Recommendation for a Council Decision’, COM(2017) 472 final, annex 1, p. 7.

40 Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the People's Republic of China [2020] OJ L408I/3, article 4, footnote 4.

41 Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part [2014] OJ L161/3, article 204.

42 Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation [2011] OJ L297/3, article 7.

43 Agreement between the European Union and Georgia [2012] OJ L93/3, article 4.

44 Australian Government (2020) ‘Australia–European Union Free Trade Agreement: Consultation on a Possible New Geographical Indications Right’ (September 2020) 5.

45 Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister and Bracharz [1999] ECR I-01301, para. 25.

46 Ibid., para. 27.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid., 28.

49 Ibid., 26. It is worth noting that ‘likelihood of confusion’ is not commonly used in GI laws but belongs to the terminology of trademark law. The EU GI Regulations and the TRIPS Agreement, instead, refer to ‘practice liable to mislead the consumer’ or ‘misleads the public’. However, the CJEU has employed ‘likelihood of confusion’ in several cases to explain the concept of evocation. For convenience, in this context, ‘likelihood of confusion’ refers to ‘practice liable to mislead the consumer’ unless otherwise specified in this article.

50 See e.g., Case C-75/15 Viiniverla Oy v Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (ECJ 21 January 2016), para. 41.

51 Ibid., para. 46.

52 Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany [2008] ECR I-00957, para. 47.

53 Ibid.

54 Case C-44/17 Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz (ECJ 7 June 2018), para. 51.

55 Case C-614/17 Fundación Consejo Regulador de la Denominación de Origen Protegida Queso Manchego v Industrial Quesera Cuquerella SL (ECJ 2 May 2019), paras. 19–21.

56 Case C-490/19 Syndicat interprofessionnel de défense du fromage Morbier v Société Fromagère du Livradois SAS (ECJ 17 December 2020), para. 41 (AG Opinion).

57 Supra n. 2 and the accompanying text.

58 Case C-783/19 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v GB (ECJ 9 September 2021), para. 52.

59 See Case C-75/15, supra n. 53, para. 22; Case C-44/17, supra n. 57, para. 45; Case C-783/19, supra n. 61, para. 59.

60 See Case C-783/19, supra n. 61, para. 59.

61 Le Goffic, supra n. 15.

62 See notes 17–20.

63 D. Gangjee (2012) Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 79; D. Marie-Vivien (2017) ‘Are French Geographical Indications Losing Their Soul?’, World Development 98, 25.

64 Wang, supra n. 18, 216.

65 TGI Strasbourg, 4 April 1978, PIBD 1979, n° 227; Cass. com., 6 December 1982, n° 81-12.287; Cass. com., 9 November 1981, n° 80-12.943; Cass. com., 3 May 1983, n° 81-16.606. The referenced French legal cases in this paper can be accessed via French legal databases such as Legifrance, Lexis360, and Dalloz.

66 Cass. crim., 25 November 1970, n° 69-90.594.

67 Cass. com., 18 May 1981, n° 79-13.806.

68 Cass. com., 12 June 1978, n° 76-13.980.

69 In early French cases, the terms ‘evocation’, ‘evocative’, or ‘evoke’ were seldom explicitly referenced, except in one notable instance where a party contended that trademarks should be prohibited ‘due to the sole fact that they evoked geographical appellations of origin’. However, the court dismissed this argument, asserting that no confusion was feasible in that specific case. See Cass. com., 12 June 1978, n° 76-13.980.

70 E. Agostini (1988) ‘Cass. com. 1er décembre 1987 – Commentaires’, La Semaine Juridique Edition Générale II 42, 21081.

71 Cass. com., 9 November 1981, n° 80-12.943.

72 Cass. crim., 29 November 1972, n° 71-91589.

73 TGI Strasbourg, 4 April 1978, PIBD 1979, n° 227; Cass. com., 3 May 1983, n° 81-16.606.

74 Cass. com., 6 December 1982, n° 81-12.287.

75 Cass. com., 9 November 1981, n° 80-12.943

76 TGI Strasbourg, 4 April 1978, PIBD 1979, n° 227; Cass. com., 3 May 1983, n° 81-16.606; Cass. com., 9 November 1981, n° 80-12.943.

77 Cass. com., 1 December 1987, n° 86-11.328.

78 Cass. com., 12 June 1978, n° 76-13.980.

79 Ibid.

80 Cass. com., 18 May 1981, n° 79-13.806.

81 Cass. crim., 25 November 1970, n° 69-90.594; Cass. crim., 18 June 1997, n° 96-83.018.

82 Cass. com., 12 June 1978, n° 76-13.980.

83 It is noteworthy that if the contested name was identical to the AOC, rather than merely imitating it or being sufficiently similar to evoke it, it could be prohibited from use on products of the same category without the need to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, it could also be prohibited from use on dissimilar products if it was found to exploit the reputation of the AOC unfairly and devalue its significance. See TGI Paris, 5 March 1984, Ann. propr. ind. 1985, p 161; G. Bonet (2004) ‘Des Cigarettes aux Parfum, L'irrésistible Ascension de l'Appellation d'Origine Champagne vers la Protection Absolue', Propriétés Intellectuelles 13, 853, 856.

84 EC (1990) ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation’, SEC(90) 2415 final, article 14.

85 Ibid.

86 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 [1992] OJ L208/1, article 13.

87 See notes 62–63.

88 The examples provided are not exhaustive but serve as illustrations. These examples are referenced in the subsequent discussions in this section.

89 Case C-614/17, supra n. 58, para. 19 (AG Opinion).

90 See Section 4.1.2.

91 See Section 3.1.

92 Cass. crim., 22 February 2011, n° 10-80.723.

93 CA Nîmes, 22 June 2004, n° 04/0735.

94 Cass. crim., 19 April 2005, n° 04-84.854.

95 Ibid.

96 EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 15 April 2015 (Case R 2222/2013-1), para. 50.

97 Ibid., para. 51.

98 EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 14 November 2019 (R 425/2019-1), paras. 100–102.

99 EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 12 June 2017 (R 2390/2016-2), para. 32.

100 EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 1 October 2021 (R 566/2015-2), para. 44.

101 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 17 April 2015 (B 2338120) 7.

102 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 14 May 2014 (B 2135476) 8.

103 See Section 4.1.2.

104 For instance, the necessity to prohibit associations that dilute or take unfair advantage of GIs' reputation was widely acknowledged in French case law prior to the introduction of the evocation provision. Supra n. 86.

105 Case T-659/14 Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHMI (EGC 18 November 2015), para. 74.

106 Case C-56/16 P EUIPO v Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (ECJ 14 September 2017), para. 97 (AG Opinion).

107 EUIPO, Decision of 14 May 2014, supra n. 105) 8.

108 EUIPO, Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 September 2016 (R 980/2015-4) 10.

109 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 2 March 2021 (B 3073858) 11.

110 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 21 December 2020 (B 3089786) 12.

111 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 31 January 2019 (B 3035121) 7.

112 EUIPO, Decision of the Cancellation Division of 26 June 2020 (C 32583) 7.

113 EUIPO, Decision of 17 April 2015, supra n. 104) 7.

114 Case T-417/20 Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO (EGC 6 October 2021), paras. 47–48.

115 Haemmerli, A. (1999) ‘Whose Who – the Case for a Kantian Right of Publicity’, Duke Law Journal 49, 383Google Scholar, 461.

116 Ibid., 462.

117 Case C-44/17, supra n. 57, para. 53.

118 Case T-659/14, supra n. 108, para. 54.

119 Ibid., para. 76.

120 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 16 April 2019 (B2881061) 5.

121 EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 April 2020 (R 993/2019-2), para. 54; See also Case T-417/20 Esteves Lopes Granja v EUIPO (EGC 6 October 2021) 47–48.

122 In evaluating the comparability of the products, careful consideration was given to scrutinizing their distinguishable physical attributes.

123 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 27 September 2022 (B 2477183) 11.

124 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 28 February 2020 (B 2629858) 11.

125 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 11 November 2019 (B 2843269) 11.

126 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 26 March 2019 (B 2953118) 12.

127 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 18 October 2017 (B 2784596) 9.

128 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 14 August 2019 (B 3017210) 10.

129 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 2 October 2020 (B 3076510) 8.

130 EUIPO, Decision of 26 March 2019, supra n. 129, 12.

131 EUIPO, Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 17 April 2020 (R 1132/2019-4), para. 39.

132 Supra n. 124 and the accompanying text.

133 EUIPO, Decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 April 2018 (12448 C) 7.

134 EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 9 January 2014 (R 426/2013-1), para. 29.

135 CE, 27 July 2005, n° 261989; See also CE, 30 March 2009, n° 304990.

136 Case C-75/15, supra n. 53, para. 45.

137 Case C-614/17, supra n. 58, para. 17 (AG Opinion).

138 See, e.g., Case C-783/19, supra n. 61, paras. 36–37 (AG Opinion); Case T-510/15 Mengozzi v EUIPO (EGC 2 February 2017, para. 31; EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 March 2022 (R 2564/2019-2), para. 53.

139 TGI Paris, 6 January 2012, n° 10/02979.

140 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 18 November 2021 (B 3091533) 10.

141 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 21 December 2020 (B 3102239) 8.

142 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 19 March 2019 (B 3022988) 7.

143 See, e.g., CA Paris, 25 April 2007, n° 06/03001; CAA Bordeaux, 16 July 2021, n° 20BX02993.

144 See, e.g., EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2018 (R 2110/2017-1), para. 31 (arguments of the applicant).

145 See, e.g., Article 5 of the EU GI Regulation 1151/2012.

146 Article L. 641-5 of the French Rural Code.

147 See EUIPO (2023) ‘Guidelines for Examination in the Office’, Part C Opposition, p. 1310.

148 Franklyn, D. (2004) ‘Debunking Dilution Doctrine: Toward a Coherent Theory of the Anti-Free-Rider Principle in American Trademark Law’, Hastings Law Journal 56, 117Google Scholar, 159.

149 Verbeeren, M. and Vrins, O. (2021) ‘The Protection of PDOs and PGIs against Evocation’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 16, 316, 328CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

150 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 20 April 2018 (B 2780719) 7.

151 EUIPO, ‘Guidelines’, supra n. 25, 591.

152 Verbeeren, supra n. 152, 326 (footnote 100).

153 EUIPO (2023) ‘Guidelines for Examination in the Office (Draft Version)’, Part B Examination, p. 656.

154 EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 13 May 2020 (R 2230/2017-2), para. 31.

155 Ibid. See also EUIPO, Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 29 September 2017 (R 1006/2017-5), para. 36; EUIPO, Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 19 September 2019 (R 1223/2019-5) 26.

156 EUIPO, Decision of the Invalidity Division of 18 May 2020 (14481 C) 9.

157 Stefan Martin, Member of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, argues that reputation under GI regulations should be not confused with reputation with regard to trademarks. See EC (2022), ‘Impact Assessment Report Accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation’, SWD(2022) 135 final, Part 2/2, 231.

158 EUIPO, Decision of 21 April 2020, supra n. 124, para. 36.

159 Case T-510/15, supra n. 141, para. 48.

160 EUIPO, Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 April 2022 (R 1299/2021-4), para. 53; EUIPO, Decision of 16 July 2018, see n. 147, para. 33.

161 Joined Cases T-57/04 and T-71/04 Budějovický Budvar v OHMI [2007] ECR II-01829, para. 149.

162 Ibid., para. 150.

163 Gangjee, supra n. 66, 167.

164 CA Paris, 3 November 2010, n° 09/07276; TGI Paris, 20 May 2016, n° 14/12759.

165 Judgement of 21 March 2022, Provincial Court of Barcelona, para. 10.4.

166 A.K. Sanders (2020) ‘Dilution and Damage beyond Confusion in the European Union’, in I. Calboli and J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of International and Comparative Trademark Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 499, 508.

167 EUIPO, Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 28 July 2015 (R 2718/2014-4), para. 20.

168 EUIPO, Decision of 19 September 2019, supra n. 158, para. 22.

169 See also EUIPO, Decision of 20 April 2018, supra n. 136, 7; EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 25 November 2020 (B 3066320) 8.

170 EUIPO, Decision of 5 September 2016, supra n. 110, para. 38.

171 EUIPO, Decision of 12 June 2017, supra n. 102, para. 36.

172 Joined Cases C-108/97 & C-109/97 Windsurfing Chiemsee [1999] ECR I-2779, para. 40 (AG Opinion).

173 Case C-614/17, supra n. 58, para. 43.

174 Ibid., para. 13.

175 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 5 October 2016 (B 2571738) 19.

176 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 17 March 2020 (B 3056580) 6.

177 EUIPO, Decision of 31 January 2019, supra n. 114, 7.

178 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 27 February 2015 (B 2304312) 18.

179 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 5 August 2020 (B 3079568) 7.

180 Supra n. 176.

181 Case C-44/17, supra n. 57, para. 53.

182 Supra n. 125–131.

183 EUIPO, Decision of 16 July 2018, supra n. 147, para. 29; EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 7 October 2019 (B 3059890) 5.

184 EUIPO, Refusal of Application for a European Union Trade Mark (12 March 2020) 5.

185 EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal Of 24 June 2019 (R 400/2018-2, para. 32.

186 Ibid., para. 34.

187 Case C-783/19, supra n. 61, para. 61.

188 See, e.g., EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 28 October 2021 (R 1101/2019-1, para. 67.

189 Case C-783/19, supra n. 61, para. 49.

190 EUIPO, Decision of 9 January 2014, supra n. 137 para. 24; EUIPO, Refusal of Application for a Community Trade Mark (23 March 2015) 3.

191 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 25 October 2016 (B 2574823) 7.

192 EUIPO, Decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 May 2016 (9721 C) 17.

193 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 10 December 2018 (B 2989104) 4.

194 EUIPO, Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 26 October 2012 (R 1732/2012-2) para. 26.

195 EUIPO, Decision of 5 August 2020, supra n. 182), 7.

196 Verbeeren, supra n. 152) 328.

197 Case C-393/16 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (ECJ 20 December 2017), para. 46 (AG Opinion).

198 A. Folliard-Monguiral (2017) ‘Arrêt Port Charlotte’, Propriété Industrielle, comm. 61.

199 P. Viviant (2019) ‘L’évocation: une Protection de l'Appellation d'Origine en Construction', Revue Lamy Droit de l'Immatériel 161.

200 Case T-626/17 Slovenia v Commission (EGC 9 September 2020), para. 192.

201 Case C-487/07 L'Oréal v Bellure [2009] ECR I-05185, para. 76 (AG Opinion).

202 Case C-381/05 De Landtsheer Emmanuel v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne [2007] ECR I-03115, paras. 68–69.

203 Case C-393/16 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd Dienstleistungs (ECJ 20 December 2017), para. 56.

204 Gangjee, ‘Strengthening GIs (Responsibly)’, supra n. 16.

205 C. Le Goff (2021) ‘Affaire “Morbier AOP” : Cassation Attendue Après l'Arrêt de la CJUE', Propriété Intellectuelle 675.

206 See Section 4.2.3.

207 S. Chatry (2019) ‘Évocation d'une AOP par l'Emploi d'un Signe Figuratif', L'Essentiel Droit de la Propriété Intellectuelle 7, 5.

208 Cass. com., 14 April 2021, n° 17-25.822.

209 For an example of a traditional producer not joining the official GI scheme (Porcelaines Doralaine, claimed as the first French producer of the Porcelaine de Limoges), see CA Paris, 25 September 2018, n° 18/00624.

210 Chambre des Deputes (1919) ‘Compte Rendu In-Extenso’, JO 25 April 1919, 2170.

211 Case C-487/07 L'Oréal v Bellure [2009] ECR I-05185, para. 76 (AG Opinion).

212 See, e.g., W.J. Derenberg (1955), ‘The Influence of the French Code Civil on the Modern Law of Unfair Competition’, American Journal of Comparative Law 4, 1, 3; Ghidini, G. (2010) Innovation, Competition and Consumer Welfare in Intellectual Property Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 237–238Google Scholar.

213 See, e.g., Gangjee, D. and Burrell, R. (2010) ‘Because You're Worth It: L'Oréal and the Prohibition on Free Riding', The Modern Law Review 73, 282Google Scholar, 288.

214 See, e.g., G.S. Lunney, Jr (1999) ‘Trademark Monopolies’, Emory Law Journal 48, 367, 445.

215 See, e.g., Frischmann, B.M. and Lemley, M.A. (2007) ‘Spillovers’, Columbia Law Review 100, 101, 102Google Scholar.

216 B.M. Frischmann (2005) ‘An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management’, Minnesota Law Review 89, 917, 967 (2005).

217 See, e.g., Greene, S.M. (2006) ‘Sorting Out Fair Use and Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Law’ American Business Law Journal 43, 43, 75Google Scholar.

218 Case C-490/19, supra n. 59, para. 45 (AG Opinion); Case C-614/17, supra n. 58, para. 29 (AG Opinion).

219 Cass. crim., 19 April 2005, n° 04-84.854.

220 Cass. crim., 5 April 2005, n° 04-85.861.

221 EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 16 January 2014 (R 51/2013-1), para. 6.

222 CA Paris, 22 November 2006, n° 05/20050.

223 EUIPO, Decision of the Opposition Division of 5 October 2021 (B 3122893) 9.

224 Cass. com., 29 November 2011, n° 10-25.703, 1180.

225 EUIPO, Decision of 21 March 2022, supra n. 141,) para. 57.

226 EUIPO, Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 June 2021 (R 1249/2016-1) 46; Case C-87/97, supra n. 48, para. 33 (AG Opinion); Case C-783/19, supra n. 61, para. 68.

227 Joined Cases C-4/10 and C-27/10 Bureau national interprofessionnel du Cognac v Gust. Ranin Oy [2011] ECR I-06131, para. 47.

228 Bone, R.G. (2004) ‘Enforcement Costs and Trademark Puzzles’, Virginia Law Review 90, 2099, 2015Google Scholar.

229 Case C-75/15, supra n. 53, paras. 23–24.

230 Case C-44/17, supra n. 57, para. 37.

231 Case C-614/17, supra n. 58, para. 20.

232 Case C-490/19, supra n. 59, para. 29.

233 Case C-614/17, supra n. 58, paras. 29–30.

234 See n. 16–20 and the accompanying text.

235 See, e.g., CA Paris, 17 December 2021, n° 21/01247; EUIPO, Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 29 July 2022 (R 1940/2021-5).

236 See also Miller, J.S. (2014) ‘Error Costs & IP Law’, University of Illinois Law Review 175, 183Google Scholar.

237 EC (2022) ‘Proposal for a Regulation on European Union Geographical Indications for Wine, Spirit drinks and Agricultural Products’, COM(2022) 134 final, 44.

238 However, the term ‘in particular’ in the proposed definition may imply that dilution, free-riding, and tarnishment are not an exhaustive list but illustrative for unlawful evocation. The inexhaustive enumeration might create a new source of inconsistency in applying the anti-evocation clause. Should the anti-evocation clause apply when dilution, free-riding, or tarnishment does not exist? If the answer is in the affirmative, this enumeration would again blur the justifications for anti-evocation.

239 EP (2022) ‘Amendments Tabled in Committee’, PE737.394, amendments 513–518.

240 Ibid., amendment 515.

241 Ibid., amendment 518.

242 Council (2022) ‘Progress Report’, 9256/2/22 REV 2, p. 4.

243 Council (2022) ‘Progress Report’, 15112/22, p. 6.

244 Case C-87/97, supra n. 48, para. 57 (AG Opinion).

245 Díaz-Marta, supra n. 20, footnote 50.

246 Paganizza, supra n. 17, 224.

247 See n. 240–246 and the accompanying text.