SHARED-USE TRADEMARKS FOR THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS 157 not associated with any of them, and, furthermore, may be linked to different geographical areas. The reality of the market is thus complex, given that it is not only a question of competing operators (who must always act and strive for fairness) but also of products which, although offered by the same operator, are in competition with each other because they belong to different geographical indications. In this case, it must be taken into account that the sign that distinguishes the product is no longer only the trademark (which is the same for all the operator’s products) but the corresponding geographical indication4. All this leads to the need to look for new elements that help to clearly differentiate wine products that share a brand. Accordingly, the European Union symbols to identify PDO-PGI and the indication of wider geographical areas, in both cases as optional indications, could serve to mitigate the confusion that these shared labels could create for consumers. But are all these measures sufficient to achieve adequate protection of the interests of geographical indications? Which of them should prevail when considering that the position finally adopted directly affects the interests of consumers? Nonetheless, other protected interests should also be taken into account. For instance, the management bodies of the various geographical indications are responsible for protecting them, as they assume the tasks of ensuring the protection and prestige of the designation and the promotion and defence of the protected product [art. 16(a) LDOIGP]. They are also responsible for taking the legal or extrajudicial action available to them to defend the name protected by the PDO or PGI against unlawful use constituting acts of unfair competition or other improper uses. In this context, reference should be made to the legitimacy they have to include in the regulations governing the various geographical indications, some rules on co-branding, as shown in the court decisions indicated in the following section. Finally, the interests of the administrations responsible for the recognition of the various geographical indications are also worth mentioning, since it should not be forgotten the markedly public nature that characterises these distinctions and that it is precisely the administration that authorises the use of shared-use marks and, consequently, sanctions in those cases in which there is noncompliance. These sanctions may be basic in nature – when they have no consequences for the use of the distinctive signs – or specific – if they entail temporary suspension of the right to use the geographical indication in question. 4 An example of this use of co-branding of wine products is the case of the Patanegra brand, used to identify products of the following geographical indications: Jumilla, Valdepeñas, Toro, Rioja, Ribera del Duero, Rueda, Penedés and Cava.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==