PROTECTION OF WINE NAMES BY TRADEMARK LAW 121 with the result that the marketing of its goods or services is facilitated by that association with the earlier renowned trademark48. Therefore, a trademark application for Kenzo designating services related to wine sales and marketing has been refused registration in consideration of the Kenzo trademark, which benefits from a reputation for luxury fashion goods, since “services falling within the wine sector may like clothing, perfumes and cosmetics, be part of the luxury sector. In addition, it is possible that proprietors of trademarks for cosmetics may also be active in the alcoholic drinks sector. […] it was highly likely that the mark applied for would ride on the coat-trails of the earlier trademark in order to benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation, the prestige of that mark and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the intervener in order to create and maintain the mark’s image”49. French law has equivalent national provisions, even prior to the implementation of the 2015 Directive. Thus, it has been ruled by the Court of Appeal in Angers that Yquem for various products, such as washing powder, jewellery and clothing, is detrimental to the reputation of the trademark Château d’Yquem, which is extended far beyond the public who have the opportunity to consume the wine of Chateau d'Yquem, at a high price. Therefore, the renowned trademark was in a position to play a favourable role in the applicant’s field of activity. Furthermore, this use of the name of a locality in which the Château d’Yquem is located constitutes an unjustified exploitation of the trademark registered since the applicant had no connection to this place50. II.1.2. AVAILABILITY REGARDING PRIOR DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN OR GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION Unlike trademarks, the essential function of DOs and GIs is not to identify the commercial origin of goods or services, but to guarantee the consumer that the geographical origin of the goods and the special qualities connected therewith. Based on the absolute grounds for refusal or nullity [art. 7(1)(j) EUTMR], DOs and GIs are protected only in respect of comparable products. Their inclusion as a relative ground for refusal or invalidity in article 8(6), in conjunction with article 60(1)(d), allows the latter’s protection in case of risk of 48 GCEU of 25 March 2009, L’Oréal – Spa Monopole T-21/07. 49 GCEU of 22 January 2015, Kenzo Tsujimoto T-322/13. 50 Angers Court of Appeal no. 9501433, 7 June 1996 (upon return after cassation).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==