118 WINE LAW services it designates. The scope of protection is extended to non-similar goods and services for registered trademarks with reputation [art. 60(1) and 8(5)]. In case of identical reproduction of the sign and the designation of identical goods to those for which the prior trademark has been registered, the nullity of the application is obvious and does not raise any particular difficulties [art. 8(1)(a)]. However, when the sign is imitated (whether to designate identical or similar products) or reproduced, but the designated products are simply similar to those of the prior trademarks, the second trademark will be considered as invalid provided the existence of a likelihood of confusion is established [art. 8(1)(b)]. The likelihood of confusion happens when there is a risk the public might believe that the goods or services at issue come from the same undertaking or from economically-linked undertakings. It requires an overall assessment according to the relevant public’s perception of the signs and the goods or services at issue, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a lesser degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the signs and vice versa38. The perception of the signs by the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood of confusion. According to a consistent case-law, alcoholic beverages are for everyday consumption, normally widely distributed, ranging from the food section of supermarkets, department stores and other retail outlets to restaurants and cafés. In the wine sector, the consumer of alcohol is a member of the general public, who is deemed reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, who will demonstrate an average level of attention when purchasing such goods39. This assessment is not called into question by the limitations on access to alcoholic beverages resulting from restrictions of their sale depending on the age of consumers. As regards the assessment of similarity of goods and services in the wine sector, the EUIPO40 considers that: 38 ECJ of 13 September 2007, Il Ponte Finanziaria, C‑234/06 § 48; ECJ of 29 September 1998, Canon, C39/97 § 17. 39 See: GCEU of 14 May 2013, Masottina, T‑393/11, § 24; GCEU of 30 June 2015, La Rioja Alta (VIÑA ALBERDI), T‑489/13; GCEU of 19 January 2017, Stock Polska, T-701/15 §§ 18-26. 40 See EUIPO Trademarks Guidelines.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==