Lex'Wine
CHAMPAGNE AND SURNAME
Written by Magali Monin & Aurore Los Thursday, 01 July 2010 10:08
On June 2, 2010, the Paris Court of Appeal held in favour of the wine producers SERGE and RAYMOND HENRIOT who were involved in a proceeding against CHAMPAGNE HENRIOT.
Father and son were selling champagne using their surname together with their names but without any corresponding trademark. French company CHAMPAGNE HENRIOT sued them for trademark counterfeiting and harm to its repute as well as for unfair competition and parasitism.
Wine trademarks: Keep track of your renewals!
Monday, 13 July 2009 13:25
The owner of Château Marcillac (Bordeaux), forgot to renew this trademark and had to file a new application.
New episode in the European Budweiser saga
Monday, 13 July 2009 11:38
In order to oppose to the American BUD beer trademark in the EU, Budvar relied on the "BUD" Geographic Indication (GI) already registered with WIPO for identical products.
On December 16, 2008, the European Court of First Instance specified the criteria for oppositions based on a GI. First, mere use in the course of trade of the GI must be proven, and not genuine use. Also, the GI has to be protected in more than one Member State.
Lastly, the existence of an appellation of origin cannot be questioned by the OHIM.
Our New Department LEXWINE
Written by Virginie Dupain Sunday, 19 October 2008 14:26
LexWine is dedicated to wines and spirit under Claire Mourrieras’ responsibility (Manager of our office in Bordeaux) with Jean-Baptiste Thial de Bordenave (IP Lawyer and former member of the BNIC, the Cognac Federation).
It brings to 5 the number of our specialised departments which also include: LexConcept, LexValue, ArtinLex and Cookin’Lex.
Notoriety abuse for wine products
Written by Claire Mourrieras Thursday, 19 June 2008 12:54
Reputation increases the level of trademark protection. But particular huge reputation sometimes proved to be detrimental when defending monopolies. It is not different for wine products. French Courts had the occasion to use this argument for turning down a risk of confusion between two worldwide “chateaux of Bordeaux” with other wines.
On July 1st 2008, it was stated that “highlighted like obviousness, Cheval Blanc speaks for itself”. On November 21, 2005 the judge ruled that « the worldwide reputation of “Petrus” in Pomerol area can turn down any risk of confusion for consumers with another name of château used for a Bordeaux Supérieur” (a less prestigious area).
This is of course a paradoxical effect of reputation. However, the judges seem to elude that “risk of confusion” does not mean “risk of association”. Indeed consumers could assume that there is a commercial link between such trademarks and that, for example, “Pétrus Gaïa” comes from the same undertaking as Pétrus.
