Capitalizing on the recent preliminary ruling issued by the European Court of Justice in favor of "Champagne" against "Champanillo" according to which the concept of ‘evocation’, within the meaning of EU legislations, does not require that the product covered by “Champagne” and the product or service covered by "Champanillo" be identical or similar” (Judgment in Case C-783/19), two recent oppositions filed in Thailand, the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne (CIVC) and the Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité (INAO) have successfully enforced “Champagne” against marks containing the term “Champagne” for bar and restaurant. The two decisions of the Thai DIP are triple win to the CIVC and more generally to GI owners strengthening the legal arsenal to rely against deceptive practices and parasitic behaviors:

• It is now clearly prohibited to register a mark containing a registered GI in Thailand, regardless of the mark is applied for identical goods or not as those for which the GI is registered.
• The disclaimer of a GI which is also a geographical name is not an acceptable condition for allowing the registration of a mark comprised of a GI registered in Thailand.
• It is against public order or public policy to register a mark containing a GI, registered or not in Thailand, regardless the goods or services are of the same description as those for which the GI is registered or known, if there is a likelihood of public confusion. 

Fabrice Mattei who represents the CIVC and INAO in those cases has co-written an article with Marie-Anne Humbert Genand, Legal Department Head of the CIVC, explaining the decisions in more details, available here.

TAGS

• WTR
• Geographical indications
• Thailand
• Europe