The matter at hand

GB owns tapas bars in Spain and uses the sign CHAMPANILLO (‘little champagne’ in Spanish)  to designate and promote them. Moreover, GB uses in its advertisement an image of two champagne coupes containing a sparkling beverage.

The Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), an organisation which safeguards the interests of champagne producers, brought an action before the a court in Barcelona, seeking to prohibit the use of the term Champanillo. According to the CIVC, the use of the sign Champanillo infringes the protected designation of origin (PDO) ‘Champagne’. In its defence, GB argued that the use of the sign CHAMPANILLO as a trade name for tapas bars does not give rise to any risk of confusion with products covered by the PDO.

The court in first instance rejected the claim, citing a judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court, which held that the use of the term Champín to market a carbonated, non-alcoholic fruit-based drink intended for consumption at children's parties did not infringe the PDO 'Champagne’, due to the fact that the products involved and their target audience were different.

Upon appeal, the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Provincial Court of Barcelona) asked whether Article 103(2)(b) of Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013 protects PDOs against the use in commerce of signs which do not designate products but services. Moreover, the referring court raised the question of whether infringement of Article 103(2)(b) of Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013 requires any similarity between the product or service for which the contested sign is used and the product designated by the PDO.

The judgment of the ECJ

In raising its questions, the referring court also referenced the PGI and PDO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EU] No 1151/2012 of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 2006. In preliminary observations, the ECJ considers that this regulation is not applicable to wine sector products or grapevine products, so reference should only be made to Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013 (paragraph 31 and answer 1). The ECJ does however consider that the relevant article in Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013 is “comparable” to that of PGI and PDO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EU] No 1151/2012 of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs 2006 (and 2012) and that the principles developed in each system “may be applied horizontally so as to ensure the consistent application” (paragraph 32).  

In addressing the first referring question, the ECJ concludes that Article 103(2)(b) of Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013 must be interpreted as protecting PDOs from acts which concern both products and services. In this regard, the ECJ considers that this wide-ranging protection is in line with the protection objective of Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013, which is, in essence, “to assure consumers that agricultural products bearing a [registered] geographical indication [have] certain specific characteristics and, accordingly, offer a guarantee of quality due to their geographical provenance, with the aim of enabling agricultural operators to secure higher incomes in return for a genuine effort to improve quality, and of preventing improper use of those designations by third parties seeking to profit from the reputation which those products have acquired by their quality” (paragraph 49).

With regard to the question of a required similarity between the product or service for which the contested sign is used and the product designated by the PDO, the ECJ notes that Article 103(2)(b) Single CMO RegulationCouncil Regulation [EC] No 1234/2007 pf 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products 2013 does not contain any indication that the concept of ‘evocation’ necessarily requires the product covered by a PDO and the product or service covered by the contested sign to be identical or similar (paragraph 61). The ECJ specifies that, in making the assessment as to whether there is such an evocation, reference must be made to the perception of an average European consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (paragraph 62).